Face 04 - Grandfinals 25 Apr 2004

mpenza · 25th April 2004

Hadn't meant to shoot today so didn't bring my usual gear (pardon the harsh shadows). But still managed to grab some shots for the event at Scotts. The space is kinda constrained with spotlights/shops behind so the background tends to be a bit busy. Besides the usual modelling, they also have some playacting and the contestants are allowed some freedom to impress the audience. Hope you like the pics

There're 3 official photographers.... one was using a 16-35 f/2.8L and shooting two feet from the models face, blocking the judges and audience when the contestants posed. Kinda weird. Was wondering whether the faces will end up distorted

I was also trying out a new sharpening action developed by someone at dpreview. Let me know if the pics look ok (my monitor doesn't allow me to gauge sharpness properly). Thanks in advance.

As usual, any comments are welcome.

The guys showcasing Casio Exilim cameras. The guy at the bottom right is one of the judges.

The male contestants are all aiming at the ladies....

mpenza · 25th April 2004

my favourite actually. think she has beautiful eyes and a very pretty face.

The contestants came out in pairs and "flirted".... but we can't capture any good pics cos the 16-35 guy was right up there

The last guy was accompanied by two ladies... they tore his shirt open....

mpenza · 25th April 2004

The winners with the judges..... (2nd runner up was blocked... now I can't remember who she was

). Didn't want to obstruct the official photographers (or get the eye attention away from them), so shoot from the sides.

The lady judges.... Singapore Supermodel of the Year 2003 on the left and Woman of the Year 2004 on the right (please correct me if I'm wrong):

Witness · 25th April 2004

hmm..so wat did u shoot on??

mpenza · 25th April 2004

Originally Posted by Witness

hmm..so wat did u shoot on??

usually equipped with a 70-300 (helps with close-ups of face/half body shots), flash bracket (minimises shadows by throwing any behind the models in portrait mode) and external battery pack (for faster cycling of flash) for fashion shows/events. today, just have the 24-85 with 550EX (on a 300D).

sehsuan · 25th April 2004

colours seem a little weak. maybe can try +saturation?

mpenza · 25th April 2004

thanks. had only did some leveling without increasing color saturation

this is the first time I'm using parameter 2 (similar to 10D's default) on the camera.... used to shoot in parameter one (+saturation/contrast/sharpening) and a custom one (+2 saturation/sharpening).

mpenza · 26th April 2004

processed some of the pics and increase the saturation a bit.... look better now?

zZZz soon.... till tomorrow.

chrisleng · 26th April 2004

Originally Posted by mpenza

thanks. had only did some leveling without increasing color saturation this is the first time I'm using parameter 2 (similar to 10D's default) on the camera.... used to shoot in parameter one (+saturation/contrast/sharpening) and a custom one (+2 saturation/sharpening).

Hi mpenza,

I am using 10D. Does it make any different on the photos using the following 2 procedure:

1) Set +2 saturation/sharpening on the camera setting

or

2) Leave the camera's setting normal saturation, normal sharpening and do it (+2 saturation/sharpening ) on the RAW software

mpenza · 26th April 2004

I haven't shot RAW but there probably isn't much difference between the two usually.

However, generally, it's advisable to minimise processing at the source of capture. This allows you the maximum flexibility to do edits later. e.g. if less sharpening was done in camera, you could apply some softening/blurring effects to specific parts of the image is required. Noise is also reduced-would be enhanced if more sharpening is used-and can be removed more easily with software. As for saturation, setting to +2 might result in parts of the image clipping in one/some color channels (i.e. reach 256 value for jpeg) and you can't undo it later in software.

I have used +2 sharpening/saturation in 300D (which is equivalent to +4 sharpening/saturation in 10D!!!) to minimise the amount of post processing (lazy then). But later realised that images are getting noisy due to the sharpening(noisier than my previous camera - Fujifilm S602Z!!!).

chrisleng · 26th April 2004

Originally Posted by mpenza

I haven't shot RAW but there probably isn't much difference between the two usually.

However, generally, it's advisable to minimise processing at the source of capture. This allows you the maximum flexibility to do edits later. e.g. if less sharpening was done in camera, you could apply some softening/blurring effects to specific parts of the image is required. Noise is also reduced-would be enhanced if more sharpening is used-and can be removed more easily with software. As for saturation, setting to +2 might result in parts of the image clipping in one/some color channels (i.e. reach 256 value for jpeg) and you can't undo it later in software.

I have used +2 sharpening/saturation in 300D (which is equivalent to +4 sharpening/saturation in 10D!!!) to minimise the amount of post processing (lazy then). But later realised that images are getting noisy due to the sharpening(noisier than my previous camera - Fujifilm S602Z!!!).

mpenza

Thanks for your fedback. Need to get back to underworld to work now. See you

Pro Image · 26th April 2004

Originally Posted by mpenza

The winners with the judges..... (2nd runner up was blocked... now I can't remember who she was )

The lady judges.... Singapore Supermodel of the Year 2003 on the left and Woman of the Year 2004 on the right (please correct me if I'm wrong):

Yep you are right on both the ladies Nora Shereen Salim in black is the SuperModel Winner 2003. The guy wearing green is the winner Eric Brillet from the Urban Male Hunt 2001.

mpenza · 26th April 2004

Thanks for the confirmation

Had shot Nora before in other fashion shows and remembered seeing her in the papers

waileong · 26th April 2004

Although the pix are generally well composed, I must say that the use of direct flash caused the subject in almost every pix to have an unsightly shadow cast on the walls behind them, which spoiled the pictures.

What camera did you use? If you had a DSLR, might it have been better to take at 800 or 1600 and post-process using Neatimage/Noise Ninja, rather than to use direct flash?

Souphamster · 26th April 2004

the guy very cute!

mpenza · 26th April 2004

waileong, thanks for your comments

Agree on the part about unsightly shadows.

It's not really possible not to use flash cos either the background (lights in stores) will be burned out or the contestants will be severely underexposed (there is no separate lighting for the stage except for the normal ceiling lights). would have bounced the flash too if the ceiling is white (would need a bounce card/omnibounce to throw some light to the front to reduce shadows under the nose/chin). However, it's a bit yellowish and would result in a color cast.

If I had my flash bracket with me, it could have reduced the shadows shooting in portrait orientation (it throws the shadows down and behind the models). Below shows pics taken with the flash bracket at the same place:
http://mpenza.clubsnap.org/gallery/scotts04

Other ways that I could think of that would minimise shadows is to always shoot in landscape orientation with flash (throws shadows behind the models - makes the shadows less obvious), use telephoto to isolate the faces with dark background (flash or not doesn't matter - but this will only capture the face and not the fashion) or get an assistant to hold a slave flash stationed around 45 degrees to the right to cancel out the shadows. Alternatively, do not use flash and purposely overexpose the background lights (use PS to remove later) or underexpose the models (either no flash or -ve FEC) and postprocess later (it's possible with RAW captures - with jpeg, too much shadow info is lost).

Any other views on this? What would you use under the circumstances (poor stage lighting with pointed sources/brightly lit areas in the background which is sometimes predominantly white)?

mpenza · 26th April 2004

Originally Posted by Souphamster

the guy very cute!

which one you like?

They also parade in underwear for one of the segments. Not too sure if it's suitable for posting, so I left them out

mpenza · 28th April 2004

btw, the sharpening action used is from: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=8524866

sequitur · 29th April 2004

hmm

a little harsh on the flash.

the background is too properly exposed and it snatches away the focus on the models. (despite you not intending to shoot.. yes.)

probably do a -1/2 or more on the background and fill in the flash at probably -1 2/3 flash compensation. that should remove the distractions a little.

mpenza · 29th April 2004

thanks sequitor. that may not work too well cos it will make the shadows even harsher and the models underexposed (the models are at least 2 or 3 stops darker than the background

). next time got chance, I'll try with different settings. usually I shot with 1/200s to darken the background and with flash bracket to throw the shadows behind the models, so shadows are not visible.... this time had wanted to use the ambient lighting to overpower the shadows. Think it worked for a few pics, but not for others.

25th April 2004	#1
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,402	Face 04 - Grandfinals 25 Apr 2004 Hadn't meant to shoot today so didn't bring my usual gear (pardon the harsh shadows). But still managed to grab some shots for the event at Scotts. The space is kinda constrained with spotlights/shops behind so the background tends to be a bit busy. Besides the usual modelling, they also have some playacting and the contestants are allowed some freedom to impress the audience. Hope you like the pics There're 3 official photographers.... one was using a 16-35 f/2.8L and shooting two feet from the models face, blocking the judges and audience when the contestants posed. Kinda weird. Was wondering whether the faces will end up distorted I was also trying out a new sharpening action developed by someone at dpreview. Let me know if the pics look ok (my monitor doesn't allow me to gauge sharpness properly). Thanks in advance. As usual, any comments are welcome. The guys showcasing Casio Exilim cameras. The guy at the bottom right is one of the judges. The male contestants are all aiming at the ladies.... Last edited by mpenza; 25th April 2004 at 09:00 PM.

25th April 2004	#3
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,402	The winners with the judges..... (2nd runner up was blocked... now I can't remember who she was ). Didn't want to obstruct the official photographers (or get the eye attention away from them), so shoot from the sides. The lady judges.... Singapore Supermodel of the Year 2003 on the left and Woman of the Year 2004 on the right (please correct me if I'm wrong): Last edited by mpenza; 26th April 2004 at 11:48 AM.

25th April 2004	#4
Witness Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 6,876	hmm..so wat did u shoot on?? __________________ w maverick.photography

26th April 2004	#8
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,402	processed some of the pics and increase the saturation a bit.... look better now? zZZz soon.... till tomorrow. Last edited by mpenza; 26th April 2004 at 12:03 AM.

26th April 2004	#10
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,402	I haven't shot RAW but there probably isn't much difference between the two usually. However, generally, it's advisable to minimise processing at the source of capture. This allows you the maximum flexibility to do edits later. e.g. if less sharpening was done in camera, you could apply some softening/blurring effects to specific parts of the image is required. Noise is also reduced-would be enhanced if more sharpening is used-and can be removed more easily with software. As for saturation, setting to +2 might result in parts of the image clipping in one/some color channels (i.e. reach 256 value for jpeg) and you can't undo it later in software. I have used +2 sharpening/saturation in 300D (which is equivalent to +4 sharpening/saturation in 10D!!!) to minimise the amount of post processing (lazy then). But later realised that images are getting noisy due to the sharpening(noisier than my previous camera - Fujifilm S602Z!!!). Last edited by mpenza; 26th April 2004 at 07:22 AM.

25th April 2004	#6
sehsuan Deregistered Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 6,674	colours seem a little weak. maybe can try +saturation?

26th April 2004	#13
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,402	Thanks for the confirmation Had shot Nora before in other fashion shows and remembered seeing her in the papers

26th April 2004	#14
waileong Deregistered Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,597	Flash shadows Although the pix are generally well composed, I must say that the use of direct flash caused the subject in almost every pix to have an unsightly shadow cast on the walls behind them, which spoiled the pictures. What camera did you use? If you had a DSLR, might it have been better to take at 800 or 1600 and post-process using Neatimage/Noise Ninja, rather than to use direct flash?

26th April 2004	#15
Souphamster Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 161	the guy very cute!

26th April 2004	#16
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,402	waileong, thanks for your comments Agree on the part about unsightly shadows. It's not really possible not to use flash cos either the background (lights in stores) will be burned out or the contestants will be severely underexposed (there is no separate lighting for the stage except for the normal ceiling lights). would have bounced the flash too if the ceiling is white (would need a bounce card/omnibounce to throw some light to the front to reduce shadows under the nose/chin). However, it's a bit yellowish and would result in a color cast. If I had my flash bracket with me, it could have reduced the shadows shooting in portrait orientation (it throws the shadows down and behind the models). Below shows pics taken with the flash bracket at the same place: http://mpenza.clubsnap.org/gallery/scotts04 Other ways that I could think of that would minimise shadows is to always shoot in landscape orientation with flash (throws shadows behind the models - makes the shadows less obvious), use telephoto to isolate the faces with dark background (flash or not doesn't matter - but this will only capture the face and not the fashion) or get an assistant to hold a slave flash stationed around 45 degrees to the right to cancel out the shadows. Alternatively, do not use flash and purposely overexpose the background lights (use PS to remove later) or underexpose the models (either no flash or -ve FEC) and postprocess later (it's possible with RAW captures - with jpeg, too much shadow info is lost). Any other views on this? What would you use under the circumstances (poor stage lighting with pointed sources/brightly lit areas in the background which is sometimes predominantly white)? Last edited by mpenza; 26th April 2004 at 11:27 AM.

28th April 2004	#18
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,402	btw, the sharpening action used is from: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=8524866

29th April 2004	#19
sequitur Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,873	hmm a little harsh on the flash. the background is too properly exposed and it snatches away the focus on the models. (despite you not intending to shoot.. yes.) probably do a -1/2 or more on the background and fill in the flash at probably -1 2/3 flash compensation. that should remove the distractions a little. __________________ my flickr.