Fireworks

[Yisehaq]

Dear All, please give me your comment on this picture. To give some exif details
Canon 350D
Manual Mode
Tv 4 sec
Av 16
ISO 100
Focal length 46mm (Lens 18-55mm canon)
Tripod and cable release.
It's a bit cropped.

BTW, when I took it to print shop it turned out very ugly.:mad:

Thanks.

[tirediron]

Well done; you've got a nice image there. Your settings are good; typically 2-5 is good for most fireworks, and you've got it 'anchored', that is, a horizon against which to judge it. Perhaps a slight saturation boos in post, but other than that, it's fine.

[Nikki2291]

That is really nice, I haven't tried taking pictures of fireworks yet, but I might, that turned out wonderful.

[Yisehaq]

Thanks tirediron and nikki2291.

In other images the smoke of the firework is a great challege. Does anyone have a work arround?

[tirediron]

Thanks tirediron and nikki2291.

In other images the smoke of the firework is a great challege. Does anyone have a work arround?

I don't worry too much about it. With fireworks I'm happy with a 1-2% success rate, that is, 1-2 keepers per hundred images exposed, and quite often I think the smoke adds a little more 'dimenison' to the image. You can however quite often mask it through clever use of levels & curves and layers though.

[kurtdriver]

I don't worry too much about it. With fireworks I'm happy with a 1-2% success rate, that is, 1-2 keepers per hundred images exposed, and quite often I think the smoke adds a little more 'dimenison' to the image. You can however quite often mask it through clever use of levels & curves and layers though.

What make them "keepers"? I didn't realize that the success rate was so low, and was thinking of taking my Mamiya RB67 to tomorrow night's fireworks, but I only get ten frames per roll, I can't afford a low success rate. I guess a more specific question would be "Is there a way to ensure that, in planning a picture that it will be a 'keeper'?" Thanks, Kurt

[tirediron]

What make them "keepers"? I didn't realize that the success rate was so low, and was thinking of taking my Mamiya RB67 to tomorrow night's fireworks, but I only get ten frames per roll, I can't afford a low success rate. I guess a more specific question would be "Is there a way to ensure that, in planning a picture that it will be a 'keeper'?" Thanks, Kurt

Ehh... my advice is to practice with digital film and get a technique down pat before you try too much of that expensive film stuff. IMO, about 90% of the reason for success or failure of fireworks shots is the same as real estate: Location, location, location. Call the people who are actually in charge of the fireworks, find out where they're going to be set off from, and about how high they will typicall go. Find out what the prevailing winds are at that time of night, and scout out your shot. You may well need to get there an hour or two or three ahead of time to 'stake out your turf'. Try and pick a location that will give you a wide, unobstructed view of the fireworks, as well as a pleasing background; you really want a little background in the image if possible, since otherwise the shots tend to get a bit boring.

Once you've done all that, the formula is simple: Set your camera to manual exposure and focus, go for your sharpest aperture (usually f5.6 - 8), focus on infinity, and start with an exposure time of 3 seconds. Trip your shutter as soon as you know that the firework has been launched, and you should be fine. The first half-dozen shots are usually given to getting the timing right, and after that, it's easy.

[kurtdriver]

Thank you what is "digital film?" I hadn't thought of backgrounds, but that makes a lot of sense to me. Here in Vancouver they'll be out over the water and by moving around to the west, I can get the skyscrapers in the background. I don't think the mountains would really show up well at ten pm. And I'll leave the RB67 at home and learn on the Canon T90. Thanks, Kurt

[MoinMoin]

Well done - especially the green star is quite sharp!

[tirediron]

Thank you what is "digital film?" I hadn't thought of backgrounds, but that makes a lot of sense to me. Here in Vancouver they'll be out over the water and by moving around to the west, I can get the skyscrapers in the background. I don't think the mountains would really show up well at ten pm. And I'll leave the RB67 at home and learn on the Canon T90. Thanks, Kurt

Digital film: http://memory.co.uk/images/article-images/flash-memory-cards.jpg

;)

[kurtdriver]

That's pretty much what I thought you meant, I'll check the owner's manual for the RB67, being at least 35 years old, maybe it'll take digital film, they did things differently back then.:)

[tirediron]

That's pretty much what I thought you meant, I'll check the owner's manual for the RB67, being at least 35 years old, maybe it'll take digital film, they did things differently back then.:)

LOL, what I meant was shoot with the digital first to get a bit of practice, then once you're comfortable with the technique, break out the 6x7.

[Marko]

T.I offers excellent advice here. Nothing beats the instant feedback of digital, so try that before the 6x7 and your success rate will be higher.

[kurtdriver]

T.I offers excellent advice here. Nothing beats the instant feedback of digital, so try that before the 6x7 and your success rate will be higher.

Thanks to each of you. T.I. does give good advice, and I've enjoyed reading his posts in both this and other threads. I was cursing myself last night for not following his advice to get a good spot.
My only digital camera is in a cell phone. It does not make good photos. Perhaps I should have specified that a Canon T90 is a film camera, but I didn't think anyone would assume it to be digital. Thanks again and happy shooting, Kurt

[Greg_Nuspel]

That's pretty much what I thought you meant, I'll check the owner's manual for the RB67, being at least 35 years old, maybe it'll take digital film, they did things differently back then.:)

I'm sure you could pick up one of those cheap digital backs, you know the 22 mega-pixel with 12 stops of tonal range.:eek:

[kurtdriver]

I'm sure you could pick up one of those cheap digital backs, you know the 22 mega-pixel with 12 stops of tonal range.:eek:

Alas, 7199 bucks, American, and they fit the RZ67, rather than my RB67, I didn't bother finding out the price on that. :eek:Somewhere on the web, I saw one that had 33MP, but I just don't have room for thirty three million pixels. Or is that in base 8?