File :-(, x, )
My pics Anonymous
This is my new photoset (phantom of the opera)
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDMC-LZ7Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)37 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:01 01:34:00Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating800Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.10 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3072Image Height2304RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
Alright, first off this thing is grainy as all hell, and what is that cluster of white spots off to the left? Get rid of that music score overlay, it looks tacky. Work on your colors too, this thing is far to washed out. Oh, and try not to shoot with a big bright light in the background, it's distracting.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>92099
I agree with all of these comments. You shouldn't be shooting ISO800 unless you're shooting with a high-end digital SLR.

You also might want to think about catching it at a different angle. I'd move the camera more to the left so you're catching the Le Fantôme at an angle where you can see the mask. And a flat, two-people-one-plane composition like this isn't terribly interesting.

That being said, you're awesome for going out and getting models and costumes and a location and setting up a shot like this. Has the potential for greatness if you get a better handle on your equipment and composition.
>> Anonymous
the music at the bottom isn't doing much for me.
>> Anonymous
As said, drop the music.

I wouldn't worry about the noise too much; when viewed full size it's bad, but if you resized it to a web-display size it would be fine. It's even fine with browser resizing, which normally isn't kind to any image.

Compositionally, I would've swung the shooting position around to the right a bit, and got them at an angle instead of head-on.

Also, is this Panasonic one of the ones that can shoot in raw mode? If it is, do so. You've got a world-class lens in front of a bad sensor that definitely can be made the best of if you process it right. Just a few minutes of extra work will get you amazing results in your file.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>92243
No, worry about the noise.

I don't know what picture you're looking at, but it ain't this one. I just looked at it at a variety of sizes and the noise was clearly visible at each one.

And this is clearly a staged picture, and probably taken using a tripod anyway, so there's no reason not to drop the ISO down to something his camera can actually handle without making it look like it came out of a $5 webcam.
>> Anonymous
>>92417
>and the noise was clearly visible at each one.
A little bit of noise never hurt anything. Noise is only a problem when it interferes with seeing the image. Obviously less is better, but a little bit won't kill a photograph.

Attached is an 800x600 bicubic resampled resize. There's noise, but it's fine.

>there's no reason not to drop the ISO down to something his camera can actually handle

Already at 1/8th of a second wide open isn't a reason? There's already a little blur on the cape; models aren't statues.
>> Anonymous
>>92435

There is nothing attached.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>92435
Forgot the file.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDMC-LZ7Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)37 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:19 10:02:05Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating800Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.10 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height600RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>92437

Needs strobes or faster glass. It still looks wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>92439
Neither of which are an option. It's a fixed lens camera lacking a hot shoe.

Obviously a DSLR with something like a fast 24 (for crop) or 35 (for full frame) would be best for this sort of work, but the OP doesn't have one, and in the interim, he shouldn't worry about a little noise. It doesn't break the photograph.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>92437
>>92441
Seriously, how are you looking at that and not thinking that that's unacceptable noise? It looks like someone made a print and then rubbed it with sandpaper. It makes the whole thing look incredibly shabby to me, and apparently to everyone else in the thread as well.

The OP really needs to pick up some better equipment. There's real potential here, but I think this is one of those situations where the camera is really holding him back from the sort of pictures he wants to make.

If nothing else, he could spend $30 on an old manual film SLR with a 50/1.8 or something.
>> Anonymous
>>92445
its like im looking through a dirty pane of glass thats been rubbed with sand paper then bukkaked on :(
>> Anonymous
>>92445

I agree with this. The camera is holding the OP back. If budget is a concern then go with the suggestion for a cheap 35mm. You won't regret it.
>> Anonymous
>>92445
1. Different definitions of what constitutes "acceptable," I guess. It's almost all luminance noise, with very little of that purple-splotchy color noise. It doesn't get in the way of my appreciating the work at all.
2. Yes, I agree the camera is holding the OP back, and that if he wants to keep doing this kind of work, he ought to get a camera with a larger sensor. Definitely. But in the meantime, the noise is livable and he shouldn't compromise far more important technical considerations (preventing motion blur, namely) for a lack of noise.
>> Anonymous
>>92454
well, look wise the noise is "acceptable" since like you said its not all purple and green and crap, but the noise is still so splotchy and smeared that the picture loses nearly all detail. there may be no motion blur, but theres nothing thats sharp anyway because of the noise, so it doesnt even matter
>> Anonymous
>>92457
Panasonic cameras do that to their JPEGs. They have a poorly designed noise reduction engine that works almost entirely on the color noise but still manages to screw up detail. I know; I own one. If one shoots raw, it's fine: apply proper noise reduction that deals with the noise as needed and still doesn't rape the detail. That's why I advised the OP to do that if he can.

And there's a big difference between a lack of detail and motion blur. One just looks, well, undetailed. The other changes the scene. Sometimes one is better, sometimes the other. Say you only had a camera with a trashy plastic toy lens, and one with a sharp lens but no shutter speed faster than 1/8th. Some photographs would be best with the former and some with the latter; stuff like this would be better with the former.