From: Scotius on
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:56:03 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2010-07-28 20:30:25 -0700, Scotius <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> said:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:20:18 -0700 (PDT), otter
>> <bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 28, 4:35�pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
>>>>> Why would you want to do this, even if it were at all possible?
>>>>
>>>> � � � � I was recently covering a concert for a local magazine, and
>>>> asked a stage manager about taking pix with the flash. He said go
>>>> ahead and take a few with flash, but not too many, so as not to be
>>>> distracting.
>>> ...
>>>> � � � � I suppose for a huge event I could take one with flash and
>>>> then recolor manually and submit the pix a couple years later :), but
>>>> that's not really what I was looking to be able to do.
>>>
>>> It is often not necessary, or even desirable, to take pictures with
>>> flash at a concert. These were taken (not by me) without flash. I
>>> wouldn't say they are great, but it shows that it is at least
>>> possible:
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074977/in/set-72157623793453107/
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074927/in/set-72157623793453107/
>>>
>>> Those were taken with a Rebel Xsi, which I think is similar to your
>>> D3000, as far as sensor size.
>>>
>>> You could also get a fast prime lens, or perhaps even a camera with a
>>> FF sensor if you wanted better low-light performance.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the advice. I think there are some settings I could
>> have played with on mine that would have allowed me to get a better
>> image, but I've got to read up a bit on it yet.
>
>If you are still considering IR, you could buy a use D70 or other
>camera and have these guys do a conversion for you. That way you would
>have a dedicated IR camera.
>They have several different options. Also check their IR gallery.
>
>< http://www.lifepixel.com/digital-infrared/samples.html >

Thanks much.

I'm not in a position to buy another camera just yet, but I
might consider this when I am.
From: Scotius on
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:13:24 -0700 (PDT), otter
<bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 28, 10:30�pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:20:18 -0700 (PDT), otter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <bighorn_b...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 28, 4:35�pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
>> >> >Why would you want to do this, even if it were at all possible?
>>
>> >> � � � � I was recently covering a concert for a local magazine, and
>> >> asked a stage manager about taking pix with the flash. He said go
>> >> ahead and take a few with flash, but not too many, so as not to be
>> >> distracting.
>> >...
>> >> � � � � I suppose for a huge event I could take one with flash and
>> >> then recolor manually and submit the pix a couple years later :), but
>> >> that's not really what I was looking to be able to do.
>>
>> >It is often not necessary, or even desirable, to take pictures with
>> >flash at a concert. �These were taken (not by me) without flash. �I
>> >wouldn't say they are great, but it shows that it is at least
>> >possible:
>>
>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074977/in/set-72157623...
>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074927/in/set-72157623...
>>
>> >Those were taken with a Rebel Xsi, which I think is similar to your
>> >D3000, as far as sensor size.
>>
>> >You could also get a fast prime lens, or perhaps even a camera with a
>> >FF sensor if you wanted better low-light performance.
>>
>> � � � � Thanks for the advice. I think there are some settings I could
>> have played with on mine that would have allowed me to get a better
>> image, but I've got to read up a bit on it yet.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Yeah, look at the "ISO Sensitivity" section in your manual. I think
>you can get that camera up to 3200, but you need to see what that does
>to noise.

It gets pretty noisy at the higher ISO settings, depending on
how much available light there is. It's okay though, because I can
always shoot with a faster shutter speed in RAW format and then
brighten it up without banding at home later on.
From: Scotius on
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:10:47 +0100, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote:

>
>"Scotius" <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> wrote in message
>news:hf81565vddhjdppb56e7uvp4fehq820bvd(a)4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
>> <nervous.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 15, 7:48 pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>>>> I know that color infra-red images look really weird (for lack
>>>> of a better term), but I once read that infra-red light cuts through
>>>> fog/haze etc better than regular light, which I suppose is why B & W
>>>> infra-red shots always look better than B & W shots without IR flash.
>>>> So I'm wondering if there's a program that could accurately
>>>> predict based on IR color what the colors present should be, and
>>>> convert them, so it would be possible to do color shots better in
>>>> haze, etc.
>>>> Anyone know of anything like this?
>>>
>>>Why would you want to do this, even if it were at all possible?
>>
>> I was recently covering a concert for a local magazine, and
>> asked a stage manager about taking pix with the flash. He said go
>> ahead and take a few with flash, but not too many, so as not to be
>> distracting.
>> I had read about B & W infra-red photography in an old issue
>> of Popular Mechanics, I think, that my Dad had lying around somewhere.
>> Then I had read an article on color infra-red, and I thought "Oh, well
>> then I'll just shoot pix like that in color infra-red and convert them
>> on the computer back at home. People can't see infra-red, so there
>> won't be a visible flash, and I'll convert the pix and have great
>> shots that didn't bother anyone".
>
>I'm not sure that is practical, while you can't see infra red I'm not sure
>if ther';s a flash that flashes infra red.
>I've used colour IR in the past in was the old E4 process
>(slide/transparency film) and from memory the film is very slow for gig
>purposed under 100ASA.
>
>> It's since been explained to me that there's no method of
>> converting the color infra-red pix, since the information about actual
>> color is just as gone in those as it would be in black and white.
>> I suppose for a huge event I could take one with flash and
>> then recolor manually and submit the pix a couple years later :), but
>> that's not really what I was looking to be able to do.
>
>I've used IR a few times, and gigs quite often. I;m not sure if it'll be any
>good for gigs though.
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/616881236/
>

What I'll probably end up doing is just shooting with a high
enough ISO and fast enough shutter speed to have an image but not have
it blurry, and if I shoot in RAW format, brighten it up later. I've
noticed that the RAW files don't have "banding" after changing the
colour or brightening, since there's so much more information there.