Is your flash on-camera, or a separate unit? On-camera is useless for a
large open space, but a separate unit, especially if it has a zoom head,
can give just enough boost to help. Don't worry about blinding the
atheletes, all kinds of people are going to be blasting away with their
point-n-shoot cameras. Select about 1/45th shutter speed and second
curtain sync, if available. You get a nice blur trailing the moving
figure and a sharp final image.
Or go B&W and rate it really high, 1600 or so.
Marc
>"Mark Best" <start...@starthinker.com> wrote:
>
>> orange-tinted pictures
>
>Take them back to the place that printed them and ask them to print them so
>the lighting is more neutral.
OR... look into getting a blue filter so that you can change the color
temperature of the gym lighting.
No way. He's already got problems with blurring. A colored filter
would cut even more light. His equipment is not adequate (slow zoom) to
use a blue filter.
Marc
Use tungsten film instead of daylight.
That will reduce the orange cast without having to resort to colour filters.
--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:fa173f58.04012...@posting.google.com...
Try black and white.
Keep sportsperson sweat off the front element?
Couldn't say, but for a complete reversal on my initial post, if the gym is
lit by *fluorescent* light you'll want to use a different film again
otherwise it'll cast green/blue.
--
Eric Hocking
www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.
"Eric Hocking" <ehoc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:fa173f58.04012...@posting.google.com...
Alan
"Alan Kerr" <AL....@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:T5rQb.22078$9k7.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
David
"Alan Kerr" <AL....@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:T5rQb.22078$9k7.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Alan
Alan
"Mark Hammerschmidt" <MHAMME...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%bpQb.63049$LW.3...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
That's the trouble--every gym I've seen is lit with fluorescent
lights, and we all know what a problem it is to get any kind of decent
color balance with these. Your best bet is to go with your own flash,
and not the one on the camera, either. Go with a big portable unit
that will allow you to bounce if necessary from the light-colored
interior, and don't skimp on the watt-seconds since you'll need
serious power with a large open area like that. This should give your
shots a nice natural look, and the color balance will be right on.
>Actually you are wrong. UV does not degrade your image. Although it also
>will not help you indoors. It is a filter to block UV natural light for out
>door shots in sunlight. Cuts an insignificant amount of light, but cuts a
>specific temperature of light. The gentleman who suggested using tungsten
>film is correct. If his photos are turning out orange it is because of
>tungsten light. If it were fluorescent it would be turning out green. Your
>slow shutter speed can be compensated for by using a faster speed film. You
>will get more grain but less blur. Tungsten film for negative film will be
>hard to find, much more common in positive (slide) film. But if you are
>shooting it often it may be worth the search. On the other hand, if you are
>shooting it often you should find a way to get closer to the action so you
>don't have to waste your shutter speed on long focal lengths. IE Zoom
>lenses.
>
So-called "UV" filters do little more than the glass of the lenses
they are used on, but of course they at least afford innocuous
protection to the front element. Haze filters are another matter,
they can effectively cut the light off at near UV, or even the more
extreme ones (like the 2A) will eliminate UV altogether (even UVA).
I've always believed that a test is worth 1000 opinions. Take your
"UV" filter and interpose it between a fluorescent sample and a common
blacklight, then see how much good it does. Then do the same thing
with a haze filter and let us know.
When shooting fluorescent mineral specimens, a very aggressive UV cut
is needed to prevent the high ambient ultraviolet from creating a
strong bluish cast and fouling up the color. This is the case also
for digital cameras. For this application a Kodak 2A haze (also
Vivitar made these) is ideal, and the slight yellowish cast it imparts
can easily be adjusted out in postprocessing if desired. No other
filter I'm aware of is as effective in eliminating unwanted UV.
Older cameras with simple uncoated lenses were relatively transparent
to near UV, and for these some form of "UV" filter might show a
visible improvement.