Fire

[Shadowman]

A combination of fire, smoke, lowlight, and movement photography. Suggestions welcome as I'll have a few more chances to work on the execution. This shot was handheld: f/2, ISO 1000, 1/60sec.

The caution tape was unavoidable, I either had to take a standing shot or seated shot and couldn't get a good angle without blocking other viewers. I included the caution tape to illustrate the problems with the angle of view.

[William W]

I'd probably be inclined to close the exposure a little bit (less exposure). The reason being the fire and to get more detail in it.

I'd probably drop to ISO800, maybe even ISO640. the logic being that the details in the shadows could be brought up OK (these comments are assuming that the sample image is an indicative of the shot straight out of camera).

I interpret your OP to mean that you want the movement blur (in the hands/ arms), if that is the aim then you've nailed the Shutter Release when the head and torso are mainly still. Maybe a bit more movement in the arms - perhaps 1/30th ?

It appears that your using a Nikon 85 Prime? Nice lens. Better at F/2.4 and smaller so if you can get to F/2.4 I would do that, the little bit of added DoF would not hurt.

Good luck.

WW

[Shadowman]

I'd probably be inclined to close the exposure a little bit (less exposure). The reason being the fire and to get more detail in it.

I'd probably drop to ISO800, maybe even ISO640. the logic being that the details in the shadows could be brought up OK (these comments are assuming that the sample image is an indicative of the shot straight out of camera).

I interpret your OP to mean that you want the movement blur (in the hands/ arms), if that is the aim then you've nailed the Shutter Release when the head and torso are mainly still. Maybe a bit more movement in the arms - perhaps 1/30th ?

It appears that your using a Nikon 85 Prime? Nice lens. Better at F/2.4 and smaller so if you can get to F/2.4 I would do that, the little bit of added DoF would not hurt.

Good luck.

WW

Hi William,

Thanks for the suggestions. I was concerned about the details in the flames as you pointed out, took quite a bit of processing to control the color fringing. The posted image was heavily cropped, significant noise, highlight reduction, and minimal sharpening. I'll try the suggested camera settings.

[William W]

You're welcome.

It's an interesting and a challenging subject matter. I've been following your other posts / viewing your images similar to this Subject. I understand your desire to get it right, but as yet, I haven't had anything worthwhile that I could contribute to assist you.

. . . did you see the link and read the commentary under the image in then link?

My point linking to that image is that I think that you will be able to get around the noise with careful PP if you are underexposed for the skin tones. I think it is worth underexposing the skin tines to get the fire better exposed.

WW

[Shadowman]

You're welcome.

It's an interesting and a challenging subject matter. I've been following your other posts / viewing your images similar to this Subject. I understand your desire to get it right, but as yet, I haven't had anything worthwhile that I could contribute to assist you.

. . . did you see the link and read the commentary under the image in then link?

My point linking to that image is that I think that you will be able to get around the noise with careful PP if you are underexposed for the skin tones. I think it is worth underexposing the skin tines to get the fire better exposed.

WW

William,

Didn't see the link the first time, checked out the image, camera settings, and your details of how you arrived at your final numbers. 1/125sec is where I'd be comfortable handholding in bright light, will see if I can attempt but will try your original suggestions first.

[IzzieK]

Maybe it is time to experiment on sparkles at the deck at night just for photography sake...Now I have a question, how do you underexposed for skin tone without underexposing the sparkles too (or fire sparks for the that matter...) I have not tried any fire technique...that is why I ask...

[Shadowman]

Maybe it is time to experiment on sparkles at the deck at night just for photography sake...Now I have a question, how do you underexposed for skin tone without underexposing the sparkles too (or fire sparks for the that matter...) I have not tried any fire technique...that is why I ask...

Hi Izzie,

In William's explanation of how he set up the sparkle shot, he stated that when editing in Photoshop, he increased exposure by three stops and he used that as his reference for suggesting three stops underexposure for skin during shooting.

[Shadowman]

Two from last night.

f/2.2-2.5, ISO 640, 1/100sec

[William W]

Yes. Nice.

It's obvious in both Images the fire (the flame) is becoming a more dominate/detailed element in the Image and as it is the lighting source of the Image - that fact exacerbates the flames' dominance.

I reckon that the rim light effect that you attained in the second frame is worth exploiting if you get another chance - in which case I would look to freeze the action (maybe 1/400~500s) and set ISO to suit, to get a really concentrated expression on the face. Obviously the detail in the face is somewhat dependent upon the amount of crop that you have to do in PP - maybe use a longer lens, do you have 200mm at F/2.8?, even 200mm at F/4 might be useful.

WW

[Shadowman]

Yes. Nice.

It's obvious in both Images the fire (the flame) is becoming a more dominate/detailed element in the Image and as it is the lighting source of the Image - that fact exacerbates the flames' dominance.

I reckon that the rim light effect that you attained in the second frame is worth exploiting if you get another chance - in which case I would look to freeze the action (maybe 1/400~500s) and set ISO to suit, to get a really concentrated expression on the face. Obviously the detail in the face is somewhat dependent upon the amount of crop that you have to do in PP - maybe use a longer lens, do you have 200mm at F/2.8?, even 200mm at F/4 might be useful.

WW

William,

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I don't have any fast lenses at longer focal length than the 85mm, the fastest I can go is about f/5.3 at 200mm. Neither of these images are cropped so I had some leeway with framing the shot. I also shot a few in portrait mode at the same distance, haven't had a chance to edit those yet.

[William W]

Hi Izzie,

The reason that I linked to my Image for this thread was to encourage John to UNDEREXPOSE for the skin tones so he could get more detail in the flames.

There is a big Dynamic Range between the detail of the flame and the Performer's Skin. I anticipated that many Photographers might NOT want to underexpose too much, because doing so exacerbates noise, especially in the shadow areas of the image.

But rules are there to be broken when necessary and with John's (more modern) camera, and using mid-range ISO (500~1000) - my general advice was that with good Post Production he could still attain reasonable detail in the Performer's Face, whilst exposing the original shot, to get better for detail in the Flames.

It’s often said that a Picture is worth a thousand words . . . in this case my image was simply an example saying to John -

"Hey John, I got a reasonable image from a shot which was originally 3 stops underexposed for Skin Tones and that was with a older EOS 5D and with the ISO maxed out, so I reckon with your more modern Nikon D5200 and pulling the shot at a mid range ISO, such as ISO 640, I am confident that you can pull a few shots that will be well underexposed for the skin tones - but equally, if you want to pull those skin tones up in Post Production, I am sure that you will get a good Image – and anyway the picture is more about the flames than getting perfect skin tones.”

***

Addressing Izzie's Question:

. . . how do you underexposed for skin tone without underexposing the sparkles too (or fire sparks for the that matter...)

In the Image that I linked - EVERYTHING was UNDEREXPOSED.

In summary: I needed to underexpose the shot because I had run out of both ISO and Aperture and I needed the Shutter Speed to prevent SUBJECT MOTION BLUR and/or CAMERA SHAKE.

I was using:
> by comparison to John's Camera and OLD EOS 5D at the max ISO, ISO3200
> EF 135 F/2 (at the maximum Aperture, F/2)
> I was hand held, shooting one handed; I was tired; I had taken a few sips of Scotch

EXTRACT from image's commentary:
". . . the meter reading off his skin was something like F/2 @ 1/30s @ ISO3200. I thought “crap” – I knew I could NOT pull 1/30s one handed with a 135mm lens, I did not even want to try 1/60s or even 1/80s – so I flicked to 1/125s braced my right elbow in to my chest waited for the moment and pulled of three shots, continuous mode - this is the middle one."

WW

[William W]

. . . I don't have any fast lenses at longer focal length than the 85mm, the fastest I can go is about f/5.3 at 200mm.

Off the top of my head, you're probably better to get as close as you can, use the 85mm and crop in Post. I like the fast 85 Primes, both Canon and Nikon, very handy lenses, mine has got me out of trouble when F/2.8 was too slow.

The 85 Primes are really well balanced (weight-wise).

WW

[KimC]

Cool shots and great thread!

[Shadowman]

Cool shots and great thread!

Kim,

Thanks for commenting.

[IzzieK]

Thanks William...that was a good explanation I had missed and had to read it again and again due to lack of proper understanding about how to underexpose one thing (the skin tone) and overexpose another (the fire) in one shot. My confusion was which one do you do via software, the skin tone (person moving) or the fire (also moving fast) and still get the sharpness in both. In my mind, that should be two shots. Your example seems to lack the movements (action) of John's scenario. For action to happen in a sparkle, for example, it will be thought of as light painting and only one is sharp -- the fire moving around, whereas the person most of the time ends up not being in the frame at all or if the person holding the sparkle keep still, apart from the hand holding the sparkle, then the pose can be caught sharper depending on the light. Am I getting more confused? hence I ask...

[D L]

Nice images John. +1 to the "great thread" comment.

[Shadowman]

Nice images John. +1 to the "great thread" comment.

Hi David,

Thanks for commenting, William's contribution made it so.

[William W]

Addressing Izzie’s question:

. . . My confusion was which one do you do via software, the skin tone (person moving) or the fire (also moving fast) and still get the sharpness in both. In my mind, that should be two shots. Your example seems to lack the movements (action) of John's scenario. Am I getting more confused? hence I ask...

Hi Izzie,

I think that you are over-thinking this.

My example image was ONLY to show that NOISE could be acceptably controlled when making an extreme underexposure. Beyond encouraging John to generally underexpose the shot to get a better exposure of the flame, it was NOT otherwise related to how John should go about the task he wanted to achieve. So it would be a mistake to continue to compare the two shots as the shooting scenarios and the objectives were completely different.

Yes, my example did lack SUBJECT movement. My concern however was CAMERA BLUR. The commentary under my image notes that I pulled three shots in continuous shooting mode. The one that I choose was the middle one. The other two had a small amount of blur caused by camera movement. As I described I was limited by the Shutter Speed and I was shooting one handed and I could not wait because the moment would pass and I would miss it, so I made what I considered the best choice in a difficult shooting scenario and that was to use 1/125s.

My choice to use continuous shooting mode was because that’s a good technique to help limit the blur caused camera movement: more often than not, if you can squeeze off three, four or five frames, the middle frames are quite a deal sharper than the first and last – there are many reasons why, much of which is about human physiology and psychology – suffice to state here that it usually works, so it’s good to use.

*

ON THE OTHER HAND:

I think that John was NOT very much worried about CAMERA MOVEMENT. He was using a shorter and better balanced lens (albeit on and APS-C body), and I expect that he was not influenced by alcohol; he was well braced and he using two hands on his camera and he was not overly tired and he would be fully concentrating on the task at hand for which he had planned.

As I understand it, one of John’s aims was to get the movement blur of the flames, but release the shutter when the performer’s TORSO and HEAD were as stationary as possible.

To do this is a matter of ANTICIPATING the movement and RELEASING THE SHUTTER (pressing the shutter button) at the point when there is the least movement (in this case least movement of the head and torso.

With observation and understanding of the action many movements can be anticipated - and I think that is what John did: he anticipated the action so that he released the shutter when the performer's head was still and did that well in the last two shots that he posted.

WW

[IzzieK]

[QUOTE=William W;537451]Addressing Izzie’s question:
Hi Izzie,

I think that you are over-thinking this.

My example image was ONLY to show that NOISE could be acceptably controlled when making an extreme underexposure. Beyond encouraging John to generally underexpose the shot to get a better exposure of the flame, it was NOT otherwise related to how John should go about the task he wanted to achieve. So it would be a mistake to continue to compare the two shots as the shooting scenarios and the objectives were completely different.

Understood.

Yes, my example did lack SUBJECT movement. My concern however was CAMERA BLUR. The commentary under my image notes that I pulled three shots in continuous shooting mode. The one that I choose was the middle one. The other two had a small amount of blur caused by camera movement. As I described I was limited by the Shutter Speed and I was shooting one handed and I could not wait because the moment would pass and I would miss it, so I made what I considered the best choice in a difficult shooting scenario and that was to use 1/125s.

My choice to use continuous shooting mode was because that’s a good technique to help limit the blur caused camera movement: more often than not, if you can squeeze off three, four or five frames, the middle frames are quite a deal sharper than the first and last – there are many reasons why, much of which is about human physiology and psychology – suffice to state here that it usually works, so it’s good to use.

Exactly! I thought of why not just Continuous shots to achieve the same goal instead of having to change settings and missed something important that may happen in-between. This shot I can compare to kid/child photography -- can't dare put the camera down in case I missed the change of expression because they are quick ones too...

*

ON THE OTHER HAND:

I think that John was NOT very much worried about CAMERA MOVEMENT. He was using a shorter and better balanced lens (albeit on and APS-C body), and I expect that he was not influenced by alcohol; he was well braced and he using two hands on his camera and he was not overly tired and he would be fully concentrating on the task at hand for which he had planned.

As I understand it, one of John’s aims was to get the movement blur of the flames, but release the shutter when the performer’s TORSO and HEAD were as stationary as possible.

To do this is a matter of ANTICIPATING the movement and RELEASING THE SHUTTER (pressing the shutter button) at the point when there is the least movement (in this case least movement of the head and torso.

With observation and understanding of the action many movements can be anticipated - and I think that is what John did: he anticipated the action so that he released the shutter when the performer's head was still and did that well in the last two shots that he posted.

WW

I looked at that image again and understood what you meant there. At last! something sinked in...I got the technique now...it was so different from what I was thinking should the occasion rise and I be in this kind of scenerio in the future...I am saving a link to this post for future reference.

Thank you so very much for your explanation...you've always been a big help with your explanations and bearing with me. 'Appreciate it very much...

[IzzieK]

John...sorry for butting in-between your conversation...I really need to know as this kind of shots interests me as well...this post is a good learning experience for me...something I will remember in the future when it comes to action shots like this one...appreciate your patience.