Really impressive party shots by S9500 and S9600

[Clockunder]

His flash photography is .

Many of the indoor ones were shot at very slow shutter speed (slower than 1/10) with flash fired.

The various angles, relative heights, camera tilts he shot from and photo composition also make the pictures interesting and more lively. Can learn quite a lot from his pictures.

Click onto a picture to view its bigger version :

http://partyflock.nl/user/7908/text.html#text

[hardnail]

very nice pictures... likely he used a tripod rite?
btw, does the subjects need to keep very still when slow shutter speed is used?
seems like all the pictures are still very sharp despite the slow shutter speed...

Originally Posted by Clockunder His flash photography is . Many of the indoor ones were shot at very slow shutter speed (slower than 1/10) with flash fired. The various angles, relative heights, camera tilts he shot from and photo composition also make the pictures interesting and more lively. Can learn quite a lot from his pictures. Click onto a picture to view its bigger version : http://partyflock.nl/user/7908/text.html#text

[raincool2005]

Fuji compact cameras are getting better each year.. i am getting one

[Clockunder]

Originally Posted by hardnail very nice pictures... likely he used a tripod rite? btw, does the subjects need to keep very still when slow shutter speed is used? seems like all the pictures are still very sharp despite the slow shutter speed...

The main reason is the near subjects are recorded as freezed by the image sensor because of the flash. That's why the background moving subjects are still blur.

Once a near subject is flashed bright, it will be recorded as freezed by the sensor because the pixels on the sensor record the bright light falling on any area during the extremely short flash moment (such as 1/60, 1/125, 1/250 etc.) and any much less light after the flash will not have big impact on the brightness already recorded in those pixels. (That is why he used only ISO 200 if use flash).

On top of that, he used very short focal length (i.e. not zooming in). For e.g., at 6.2mm, the required shutter speed is about 1/8 to avoid handshake blur without image stabiliser.

[hardnail]

oh i see! thanks for the info...

Originally Posted by Clockunder The main reason is the near subjects are recorded as freezed by the image sensor because of the flash. That's why the background moving subjects are still blur. Once a near subject is flashed bright, it will be recorded as freezed by the sensor because the pixels on the sensor record the bright light falling on any area during the extremely short flash moment (such as 1/60, 1/125, 1/250 etc.) and any much less light after the flash will not have big impact on the brightness already recorded in those pixels. (That is why he used only ISO 200 if use flash). On top of that, he used very short focal length (i.e. not zooming in). For e.g., at 6.2mm, the required shutter speed is about 1/8 to avoid handshake blur without image stabiliser.

[yowch]

Originally Posted by Clockunder On top of that, he used very short focal length (i.e. not zooming in). For e.g., at 6.2mm, the required shutter speed is about 1/8 to avoid handshake blur without image stabiliser.

While there is truth in that, it depends on your magnification of the image at viewing, similar to DoF and CoC. A small handshake at wide angle will cause a moment-blur-shadow say about 5mm on the side of a dancer's body, but due to wide angle the 5mm is captured on sensor as 0.05mm (say) and you can't really see it, especially when you print small size.

1/(focal length) for handshake is based on 35mm equivalent. At actual focal length of 6.2mm for a compact cam may be about 28mm or 35mm equivalent, which means that a person with typically steady hands will shoot at about 1/30 before handshake become visible. I can shoot typically 1/15 with minimally noticeable handshake, I have a friend with shaky hands that can't do well even at 1/125.

[aaron80]

I am impressed by his pics.. This really shows the person behind the cam is the one that really matters..

[Clockunder]

Originally Posted by yowch While there is truth in that, it depends on your magnification of the image at viewing, similar to DoF and CoC. A small handshake at wide angle will cause a moment-blur-shadow say about 5mm on the side of a dancer's body, but due to wide angle the 5mm is captured on sensor as 0.05mm (say) and you can't really see it, especially when you print small size. 1/(focal length) for handshake is based on 35mm equivalent. At actual focal length of 6.2mm for a compact cam may be about 28mm or 35mm equivalent, which means that a person with typically steady hands will shoot at about 1/30 before handshake become visible. I can shoot typically 1/15 with minimally noticeable handshake, I have a friend with shaky hands that can't do well even at 1/125.

There are probably more than 10 times that I explain that the actual guideline is 1/actual focal length. The last 2 times being in the links below. If there is handshake blur recorded, then it would be blown bigger if it is a smaller sensor. However, if there is no handshake blur recorded on the sensor/film, then there is no handshake blur to be magnified even if you blow it up 100 times.

Think about prosumer cameras without image stabiliser having 300-400mm focal length on 35mm format equivalent. Do they always need to shoot faster than 1/300 or 1/400 in order to avoid handshake blur? If yes, that would almost render their long end useless in most light conditions. Obviously, the answer is No. This is because their actual focal length is actually less than 72mm at the long end and the image formed on the sensor is the same size as one formed by a 72mm lens on a DSLR or any other format and the only difference is the frame size (This is why the same image on a smaller sensor is effectively a cropped one from the image on a bigger sensor, giving it the appearance that the focal length is much longer as if using e.g. 300mm on a full frame sensor (what it means by "35mm format equivalent"). This is also why there is this thing called "crop" factor" on DSLRs which have a sensor smaller than full frame.) The actual image falling on the sensor won't be affected by how large/small the back screen (i.e. sensor) is. The only difference is the perspective (Field of View) due to how large the objects appear relative to the frame size and what is included in the frame. If there is no handshake blur recorded, then there is no handshake blur regardless of how many times you need to magnify the image to the physical picture viewing size. Therefore susceptibility to handshake blur being recorded on the sensor/film for 72mm on a smaller sensor/frame is the same as a 72mm on a bigger sensor/frame. That is also why FZ7 users with very steady hands are able to shoot at as low as 1/25 with Mega OIS at 430mm on 35mm format equivalent. No, it's not that Mega OIS works 4 stops but because actual focal length is only 72mm and Mega OIS works at least 2 stops.

Therefore the guideline is 1/actual focal length. The practitioners can verify this from their practical experience. I have been shooting countless times at around 1/60-1/125 easily on my prosumer at 280mm on the 35mm format equivalent because the actual focal length is only 72mm (although 1/60 is a borderline case where sometimes I get handshake blur if I'm not conscious of my hands). For those Panasonic FZ camera users, I'm sure that if they have reasonably steady hands and turn off their Mega OIS, they can also avoid handshake blur easily when they're shooting at 1/125 @430mm on 35mm format equivalent. DSLR (crop factor 1.5) users with reasonably steady hands on 200mm lenses can shoot handheld at about 1/200 shutter speed and don't necessarily need to shoot faster than 1/300 to avoid handshake blur.

For point and shoot cameras, the actual focal length when not zoomed is only about 5-7mm (which translates to 28-35mm on the 35mm format equivalent). But then, you can see that they can shoot without handshake blur at 1/15 easily or 1/8 with extremely steady hands (because small light PnS cameras are not easy to hold steady with hands out-stretched).

This explains why people with prosumer cams and small PnS cameras have been easily shooting handheld at 1/8-1/30 when their cameras are not zoomed.

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...=213841&page=3

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...=229835&page=3

[Clockunder]

Originally Posted by aaron80 I am impressed by his pics.. This really shows the person behind the cam is the one that really matters..

While I think the man behind the camera is the most important factor, I also think the camera, flash and wide angle he used also contributed in no small measure to what he shot.

Notice also the fill-flash he sometimes used to reduce the dynamic range between the subjects and bight background (e.g. sky) so that everything falls within the dynamic range of the camera's mage sensor, resulting in a nice picture.

[Bean]

Originally Posted by Clockunder However, if there is no handshake blur recorded on the sensor/film, then there is no handshake blur to be magnified even if you blow it up 100 times.

Will there be ABSOLUTELY no handshake blur when photos are taken handheld? I feel that the above statement about no handshake blur is flawed and thus render your theroy and explanation of the guideline is 1/actual focal length flawed.

Using your theroy that there is no handshake blur to begin with, why do we still need the 1/focal length guideline? 2mm or 20000mm, there will be no handshake blur to be magnified, unless we are talking about placing the camera on a tripod.

And just like having higher magnification (of handshake) through higher focal length, smaller sensor also magnifiy the image (and handshake). Thus, I stand on the guideline of 1/equiv. focal length.

Peace. Just a healthy discussion.

[weekh]

OT:
Does the nightspots here allow u to take pix with your DSLR and flash?

[liveevil]

Originally Posted by weekh OT: Does the nightspots here allow u to take pix with your DSLR and flash?

Most nightspots cannot.....

[Clockunder]

Originally Posted by Bean Will there be ABSOLUTELY no handshake blur when photos are taken handheld? I feel that the above statement about no handshake blur is flawed and thus render your theroy and explanation of the guideline is 1/actual focal length flawed. Using your theroy that there is no handshake blur to begin with, why do we still need the 1/focal length guideline? 2mm or 20000mm, there will be no handshake blur to be magnified, unless we are talking about placing the camera on a tripod. And just like having higher magnification (of handshake) through higher focal length, smaller sensor also magnifiy the image (and handshake). Thus, I stand on the guideline of 1/equiv. focal length. Peace. Just a healthy discussion.

1) The first point is that if you take any of your own pictures which have no handshake blur (i.e. means no handshake blur is recorded) and magnify it, do handshake blur suddenly appears out of nowhere even though there is no handshake blur in the original picture but handshake blur appears just because you magnify it?

The answer is obviously, no.

The first point is that if there is no handshake blur recorded on a photo to begin with, there won't be handshake blur present in the photo even if it's magnified 100 times.

2) So the natural question is when is handshake blur recorded?

Obviously again, handshake blur is recorded by the sensor if the image move too much on the image sensor because of too much handshake when the shutter is open.

Common sense tells us that how much the image moves on the image sensor depends on the physical handshake as well as the focal length (which magnifies the angle shift) and of course, the shutter speed.

Does the size of the back screen (i.e. image sensor) affects the image shake? Again, common sense tells that the answer is No because it only affects what is included in the frame.

Put it in another way : With steady hands at 72mm focal length at 1/72 shutter speed, a picture is taken. If there is no handshake blur recorded on a 36mm x 24mm image screen behind, do you expect handshake blur to be recorded just because you change your image screen size to a smaller 22mm x 15mm? The answer is obviously "No" because it is exactly the same image as the one on the bigger sensor but only the Field of view is changed (i.e. it is now a cropped picture of the bigger sensor).

===========
Taking (1) and (2) above together :
Now a picture is taken at 1/72 with a focal length of 72mm on a full frame (i.e. 35mm) image sensor camera and found to have no handshake blur recorded. (1/focal length guideline is followed).

The original image is 36mm x 24mm (full frame sensor size) = 864mm^2

Now crop this very same image to 22mm x 15mm (APS sensor size) = 330mm^2

This cropped picture will be exactly the same image recorded by a APS-sized sensor with the same 72mm focal length taken at 1/72 and with the same amount of handshake. Obviously, if there is no handshake blur in the original image, do you expect handshake blur to appear suddenly just because you crop it to a smaller field of view now? Obviously no. But then, you would notice that 72mm on a 22mm x 15mm sensor would be about 110mm on 35mm format equivalent.

You want a 4R (6" x 4") size picture and so need to blow the 2 images up.

For the first picture, its blown up by 4.2 times by length or 18 times by area.
For the second picture, it's magnified by 6.9 times by length or 48 times by area.

If both pictures are the same image except for field of view (due to the crop) and there is no handshake blur recorded in both pictures, then do you expect the 2nd picture to suddenly show handshake blur just because it's blown up a lot more? The answer is obviously "No" again.

Take all the above together, handshake blur risk is the same regardless of sensor size and, as explained in details above, there is no reason for the guideline to change with the image sensor size. In anticipation of some who may still be confused, I'm not saying that you will surely avoid handshake blur if you follow the 1/focal length guideline. I'm just saying that if the guideline is 1/actual focal length (or whatever it is) for the 35mm format to avoid handshake blur to be recorded, then it should be the same for other sensor/film sizes (i.e. format.) because it's the same image formed at the same focal length with same amount of handshake at same shutter speed but only different in FOV (field of view).

Obviously you didn't read the part which talks about prosumer cameras in particular.

Theory not much use. Let's look at real life practicals.

Practically, this can be best vindicated by prosumer cameras without image stabiliser or with image stabiliser turned off. Many have been shooting handheld at 1/125 for the long end which is 280mm-over 400mm on the equivalent 35mm format. All I can say is that many users can attest to this.

Read the 2 links in my original post to see actual practical results to believe.

[Cheesecake]

thread has served its purpose.