18-Oct-2006 (Wed)
Wherein we're all left blinded by the backlight.

Photos are up of the Covenant + Imperative Reaction + Rotersand show.

They brought a truly gargantuan set of lights with them: they hung a truss on the back wall of the stage, and hooked their lighting controller into our lights plus theirs. It looked fantastic! (Doubling the number of intelligent lights in the room will do that...)

That made it pretty hard to photograph, though: the show was heavily backlit, and their lighting guy was, like all lighting guys, obsessed with using solid reds. As you know if you've ever taken a picture in a nightclub, solid red light usually means "don't even bother trying to take a picture". Cameras, especially digital cameras, have very little dynamic range in red. Neither does the human eye, but cameras are a lot worse. I think I got some decent shots, though.

We finally passed our last inspection for the kitchen! That means that we're technically allowed to serve food from it. Just as soon as we have the money to buy some stuff like a microwave, a hotplate, and... food. Which we don't. Stay tuned.

22 Responses:

  1. mc_kingfish says:

    A real, honest-to-goodness kitchen?

    Does this mean there will soon be a night at the DNA called, "Vegetable"?

  2. fa_jing says:

    I wonder how infrared photography would look in a nightclub...

    • jwz says:

      I'd guess "like the same blown out, oversaturated gimick that all IR photography looks like"?

      • gunsafety says:

        Im assuming it'd have to be film.

        With digital you lose about 7 stops by shooting with an infra-red filter.

        So you'd have to be pretty damn dead on with your exposures or just very lucky. Either way you'd end up throwing away a lot of film and I don't even want to think of what a pain in the ass it would be to load IR film at a night club.

        I can't even imagine shooting regular film at the DNA. Scary thought.

        • gunsafety says:

          Also...

          I suggest Jamie purchase this as his next toy, they boast that it gives a 10-12 stop improvement on lighting conditions. Dayum.

          Canon Night Vision Adapter.

          ... link pops

          • edlang says:

            I'm not sure that'd play nice with the 24/1.4L.

            • gunsafety says:

              I'm not sure I understand why. I mean the depth of field is shallow... true. It probably will be adversely affected by it. However theres no reason if you're gaining 10 stops that you wouldn't be able to up to 5.6 or so.

              I don't get it?

        • foxgrrl says:

          Silicon photodiodes are quite sensitive all the way from 1100nm up to 200nm — human vision is from about 700nm [Red] to 400nm [Violet]. In fact, they are more sensitive to IR than they are to the visible spectrum. The reason most digital camera suck at IR, is because there is a 700–400nm bandpass filter sitting on top of the CCD. If you disassemble you camera and remove it, then you can do point and shoot, in the dark, with a "black" IR bandpass filter; And the camera will do great.
          (Modding my old D50 in this way is one of the things on my todo list. I want to get some dichromatic filters in 100nm intervals to do very wideband color separation. Imagine doing pallet cycling with the real light in the scene.)

          • gunsafety says:

            I had heard about the IR filter before. I definately think the mod would be a lot of fun. It's just that you'd have to do that to a fairly throw away camera when you're really converting it for one single purpose such as IR.

            I can't imagine voiding the warranty on a 5D for such a thing.

            I could however imagine picking up a used rebel or something on CL/Ebay and having fun with it.

            Would this almost count as an alternative process such as polaroid manipulation etc?

    • travisd says:

      Bah, Infrared is so tired. The new hotness is all about thermal imaging...

    • foxgrrl says:

      There is oodles of infrared light at most of the dances/clubs I've been to. The combination of "dim" incandescent bulbs (which are as bright as… a light bulb in near-IR) with gel filters — which are almost completely transparent to near-IR. (Typically at least to 1100nm I think. I'll have to look that up to be certain.) Yields a well-lit, IR colored, room. Not that I can really see this with my naked eyes, but my camera picks up on it alot, even with the hot mirror.

  3. allartburns says:

    (Where'd you find the Razormaid Mix?)

  4. kyronfive says:

    Red lighting is the bane of my existence.

  5. FWIW, some of the shots of the last group /were/ pretty impressive. Cool stuff.

  6. omni_ferret says:

    I thought the Covenant show was next week. My calendar has failed me!

    (Helloooooo webcast.)

  7. edlang says:

    Have your / visiting lighting guys ever explained the world-wide obsession with using red and green lights? Blues / yellows / whites are so much easier to photograph.

    • foxgrrl says:

      I meant to write a post about this a few months ago... But, you can treat monochromatic [red] light as though it was black and white film. [Historically, the first film emulsions were only sensitive to one end of the spectrum, until the invention of panchromatic film.]

      For example:
      <lj-raw>
      Example 1
      Example 1

      Example 2
      Example 2

      Hey look... Dynamic range!

      The original, kinda washed out and stuff.
      Fiddling with levels to bring out details.
      Ah, look, details.
      </lj-raw>

      More examples here:
      http://foxgrrl.livejournal.com/35914.html

      I don't think it's so much that CCD aren't sensitive to red… because they are in fact very sensitive to red. But the human eye is not sensitive to red (or blue either for that matter, blue is the worst). (Things like MPEG even take this into account.)

  8. foxgrrl says:

    Bootie Third Year Anniversary, DNA Lounge, San Francisco, CA, Aug 11, 2006
    http://foxgrrl.livejournal.com/39105.html

    Smash-Up Derby, DNA Lounge, San Francisco, CA, Aug 11, 2006
    http://foxgrrl.livejournal.com/39394.html

    • jwz says:

      Nice, thanks! Can you send me larger versions of those? 800 px wide/tall or so...

      • foxgrrl says:

        Sorry about the delay, I've been crazy-busy lately (I don't even have time to be writing this right now). I need to dig up the metadata on those to regenerate them. Otherwise I could just send you the 7.7G of raw data. (Things like the white balance and stuff was tweeked in a lot of those photos, so just exporting the raws into jpegs as-is won't look as good.)

        Anyway, I'll probably have time this weekend to do some image processing.

        • jwz says:

          Sure, whenever you get a chance. Thanks!

          If you don't have somewhere to put it, you can upload stuff to me here.

          I tend mostly to shoot at the live shows, so I'm always glad to get more pictures from the dance nights.