Chanel as "Vinette" in "The Ballad of Klook and Vinette."
I photographed this play's technical rehearsal on Sunday evening and I used two different lenses; the 16-55mm and the 50-140mm f2.8. I covered the production from the second row, center of the house, and got lots and lots of good images. But not everything was "set" of the final production that evening. There were a few costume changes and some more set dressing to go before the dress rehearsal with audience so I came back last night to build some new images into the catalog which would give the marketing people some updated images to use.
But since I felt that we were nearly 100% covered in terms of needed photos I decided to experiment and do things a bit differently for last night's shoot. I packed the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 Fuji lens and an X-H1 body. I also packed a second body and the 16-55mm because ---- just because.
My intention was to shoot from the very back row of the theater in the center. It's a smaller house than our main stage so the top row is really only ten or twelve rows up... from the stage floor. I also intended to use the 100-400mm mounted on a big, Benro video monopod; the kind with small "chicken" feet that help anchor the monopod.
I shot for a few minutes with the monopod but it really hampered the way I usually work in the theater, which is entirely handheld. It was just to cumbersome to use when following people around the stage and trying to comp very quickly.
The lens is sharp and, out of nearly 1,000 frames only a handful were spoiled by not getting exact focus. Even though parts of the play were quite dark I only had the lens hunt or refuse to lock on twice and in each episode a slight change of targeting got use back on track quickly.
I probably won't try this again because the long focal lengths were too limiting. I'm usually working from the other direction (with lenses like the 16-55mm) and trying to zoom in just a bit more than the lens will give me. In this situation I worked hard at 100mm to get good "two" shots (two actors in the frame) with enough air around them not to feel claustrophobic and I didn't have nearly as many opportunities as I thought I would to take advantage of the really long end of the lens. I took a bunch of tight shots near 400mm but they look more like headshots than documentation of a play. Live and learn. Or, rather, try something new and learn.
What I really learned was that working above the stage feels off to me. I prefer to be level with or just very slightly above the actors for camera position. I learned that the 100-400mm is a very good lens. I was impressed with the sharpness I was able to get, handheld and wide open. The image stabilization worked well and, with the camera in "boost" mode everything felt snappy and engaged.
Hitting and holding focus is tougher when you go longer. If you use S-AF and lock in on a point, like an eye, you run the risk of the actor moving just a bit before you commit to engaging the shutter. On a long lens just and inch or two can mean the difference between acceptable sharpness and the trash can. With C-AF you might start with your focus point on the object you want in focus but as actors move and the frame changes the point of sharp focus may end up somewhere else. The solution for some shots is face/eye detection but there were plenty of shots where the eyes weren't visible in the way the camera might need to see them.
I learned that my initial choice of lenses for theater work is optimal for the way I do stuff. The 140mm of the 50-140 seems to be long enough, even on the main stage and the 16-55mm, when used close enough to the stage, is great for wide shots, full width of stage shots and then also medium to large group shots.
I've really gotten the color, contrast and general look I like down to a near science with the Fuji X-H1 and I'm happy I have three....just in case. Adding back contrast and saturation while keeping the shadows open is like magic. The Eterna color profile is by far my favorite when working on contrasty stages. I dial down the noise reduction a bit which wins me back some sharpness in Jpegs and reduces the chance of getting plasticky skin tones at high ISOs and reducing the sharpness in camera also helps keep noise in check.
I was able to use ISO 6400 without fear last night and the files look almost as good as those shot at 3200. The real secret is just to get your color balance and your exposure correct. That buys you some wiggle room when it comes to overall quality. Surprisingly, the Jpegs are pretty solid and can take a lot of tweaking in Lightroom. The don't faint and fall apart with some aggressive post production.
I won't drag along the 100-400mm for the smaller theater assignments again but I have come to respect the optical performance of that lens and can't wait to use it at the next swim meet. It's definitely a keeper. I'm still a 24-200mm adherent (ff equiv. implied). That's about it.
400mm. wide open.
400mm. Wide Open. Handheld. ISO 6400.
400mm. Wide Open. Handheld. ISO 6400.
Around 230mm. Wide open.
2 comments:
This post looked lonely, so I wanted you to know at least one person had read it.
A couple of things...
I like most all of your theater photographs. The set lighting generally gives them a distinctive and very cool look. Whether the colors are "natural" or not I tend to like them. They are in my fun category as are often the costumes and the actors themselves. They tend to be less shy of the camera than civilians often are.
Then, the lens test. Pros do this sort of thing. So now you know that that lens is a keeper and you don't need it for the small theater. Is it useful for the bigger theater? I suspect that you are right about it being good for swimming meets. Is there really anything more important than that?
I just wanted to say how beautiful the skin tones in these images are. Compliments to the lighting designer and kudos to you for your efforts in shooting and post. Gorgeous stuff.
Post a Comment