Production Photos

[JD]

Here's the deal; The human eye can see a bright-to-dark ratio of almost a million to one. Film is about 1000 to 1, Video is more like 100 to 1 (And can go as low as 10 to 1 if you add the regular noise in broadcast.) In other words, much of what we see ends up outside the range of the camera. Adjust it to not wash out, and much ends up below the black level. Adjust it for dark detail, and the brights wash out. Even with the best of cameras, it is still a compromise.

The other compromise is what you want to give up in the live performance for the sake of film or video. Equipment these days is a LOT better than it was in the 1980s when I used to scream at the thought of having a show videotaped.

[icewolf08]

Actually, along with what JD said, if you really want to photograph your work and do it justice, you have to have a real photo call. Shooting during a performance or rehearsal will only ever yield mediocre photos. Since generally you have to shoot at wide apertures and slow shutter speeds when in the theatre, you want your subjects to be as still as possible. This allows you to get the best focus and little to know motion blur.

You need to know how to effectively use the light meter on your camera to get the best exposure as the exposure latitude of digital is no where near that of the human eye. Don't hope to capture every nuance of lighting. You will have to compromise on what you expose correctly for as often the actors are the brightest things on stage, you either have to "blow them out" to see what is going on behind them, or you have to let the background drift into darkness. Cameras are getting better, especially with the new CMOS chips, but you have to spend at least $1K right now for a CMOS chip camera, and even they are still far from matching what you see with your eyes.