Olympic opening ceremony shows complete lack of understanding of flash

[ott77n]

What makes you think they were photographing objects across the stadium?

The opening ceremony had just started, the lights [...]

it was clear they were all looking in the same direction at the same thing and that is where the cameras were pointed too.

Interesting analysis.

I must conclude you no longer think anybody was really photographing other spectators across the stadium. Instead you seem to think, they were all photographing the opening ceremony.
Do you have any experience photographing an event like that?

 

[dave61]

Lots of images posted already -- many reasonable and no doubt taken with P&S. The P&S shooters were probably focused on the occasion more than how to change a setting in the dark and excitement. I always burnt my toast until I figured out how to adjust the setting.

 

[Sammy Yousef]

Do you have any experience photographing an event like that?

The answer should be clear from my previous postsl: No. None. However the description I provided hardly requires professional analysis of any kind. It was clear that almost all eyes and cameras were on the opening ceremony.

--
Sammy

 

[Sammy Yousef]

It seems a little incongruous. She must have had some reason for doing it. Regardless there are people who are very intelligent and great and some things but complete klutzes in other endevours. However we're not talking about one individual with a quirk or a weakness in their abilities here. We're talking about a stadium filled with spectators.

The loudest and clearest message to me is that our cameras behave very stupidly in auto mode.

--
Sammy

 

[Marcamera]

Sammy Yousef wrote:
It was clear that almost all eyes and cameras were on the opening ceremony.

..Houston, Houston, we have a genius here!

Rgds

 

[Michael_J]

I was sitting there with my wife watching the opening ceremony of the Olympic games. I'm not a fan of the games, but she is.

I had just finished telling her that the myriad of lights flashing like fairy dust in the stadium couldn't possibly be camera flashes and must be part of the display because there were too many of them and that number of people couldn't possibly be stupid enough not to realise their flashes weren't going to reach across an Olympic stadium.

Suddenly we got close up footage of people and it became clear that my faith in people was badly misplaced. I'm in awe of the number of people don't have a clue about how their cameras work.

Are you a resident of planet earth, or just here on vacation with your wife for the games?

I am actually slightly depressed at this. It's like watching a testament to human stupidity. If any of those photos turn out it's purely by accident that there was enough available light for the shot. All the vast majority of these people were doing was ruining their shot to shot recycle times.

I went off and calculated the theoretical maximum flash distance for an SB-900 flash at full zoom with an f/2.8 lens. (I own Nikon gear). Based on the manual at ISO 6400 it's about 160m. (Guide number 56m at ISO 100). At a more reasonable ISO 800, it's 56m. I wonder how many people had pro lenses and flashes though. A lot would have been using dinky point and shoots.

Depressing!

--
Sammy

--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.

 

[Chipsthe1]

Long time ago but as accurate now as it was then.

"We are all ignorant, just on different subjects."
--
Shoot lots of pictures, always fill the frame

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

She had those small cubes that only were used once and then thrown away - don't know what they are called in English. I know she used flash because when I looked through her images after she had passed away one could see a few distracting things in the foreground of sunsets lit by the flash - clearly not a deliberate choice.

And she was a fairly bright woman, not too bad at chess.

That was a trick I was tought back in the very early 70's when I first started taking photos.

I was shown by a family friend who had been into photography for years that for cameras that used flash cubes, it was a good idea to keep a dead one around for shooting low light shots.

By placing a flash cube in most instamatic cameras, it automatically slowed the shutter speed down to either 1/30 or 1/15, and putting a dead (ie.- already used up) flash cube in the socket would help get those low light shots without having that front lit look.

Granted, this was not for shooting indoor low light sports, but did work indoors for many types of shots!

And would help an instamatic camera (or one of todays digital P&S cameras) get an overall shot at an event like last nights Opening ceremeony (which I fell asleep halfway through it).

--
J. D.
Colorado

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

So . . . you just admitted you are a newb and are "spending your spare time learning about on and off camera flash", yet here you are criticizing other newbs who don't know or understand flash?

Sammy Yousef wrote:

No I've just admitted I'm new to serious use of flash on and off camera. I am by no means a newb. I've been heavily into taking photos for roughly a decade. I've only had access to a flash unit since 2007, and a second one plus light stands and modifiers late last year.

To many of us . . . that is a newb!

Anyway, it has become painfully obvious that all you want to do is argue in this thread.

I'm sure that, at this rate, it will probably reach the 150 post limit by the end of the day!

--
J. D.
Colorado

 

[Fred Klaiss]

Look at any major indoor or outside nighttime event over the past 40 years or so and observe the same phenomenon: World Series, Super Bowl, World Cup, stadium concert, Niagara Falls at night, etc. I rather enjoy watching the firefly effect. It adds a sparkle to the scene that otherwise would be missing. Further, a good number of the flash shooters will obtain properly exposed images, due in large part to the megawatts of lighting provided for TV coverage. These snaps may be crummy, but it won't be because of lack of lighting. This reinforces the belief that the midget P&S/phone cam flashes work, so the snappers snap again and again.

 

[NetMage]

Completely wrong - a guide number is a unit of distance and is given in feet or meters. Look it up.
--
EOS 50D, 20D, 10D, 630, A-1, FZ28, SD1000
-- Please remove the Quote option!
-- Why can't you edit more than once???
-- How about switching to real forum software?

 

[Lin Evans]

Uhhh Sammy,

I didn't design the camera and I'm not "defending" anything. What I am doing is telling you how it works in some cases. You can do with the information as you like, but having over 30 digicams made by variously Pentax, Sony, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Samsung, Epson, etc., I do know "how" they respond. Whether the manufacturer's are "lazy" or not I'm not qualified to determine. What I do know is that in such circumstances cameras which do not have focusing aids which use flash or red laser can only sense ambient light. Since flash can be used in bright sunlight for "fill" or can also be used in pitch blackness for lighting a subject which can not be detected at all by the sensor, allowing the flash in such cases as with your observation sets the exposure at about 1/60th second and allows a "usable" image capturing distant lights, outlines and perhaps with post processing even pleasing images. Having an extended exposure to "properly" expose produces a totally unusable capture because of motion blur. I'm not a design engineer so whether this is "good" or "bad" is beyond my knowledge base. I do know that in many cases using flash in such circumstances allows people to get something rather than nothing and I've even used this technique myself in some cases where all I had with me was a digicam rather than my professional equipment.

Lin

 

[Pete_CSCS]

... have it set on AUTO and the flash will go off automatically because of the lack of light. They lose some of their battery life that's all.

At least they're not wasting flash bulbs, Magicubes and Flashcubes like they did in the film era.

--
'When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at
his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it.
Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two,
and I know it was not that blow that did it,
but all that had gone before.'
-- Jacob Riis (1849 - 1914)

Stay Well,
Pete K.

 

[Pete_CSCS]

She had those small cubes that only were used once and then thrown away - don't know what they are called in English. I know she used flash because when I looked through her images after she had passed away one could see a few distracting things in the foreground of sunsets lit by the flash - clearly not a deliberate choice.

And she was a fairly bright woman, not too bad at chess.

That was a trick I was tought back in the very early 70's when I first started taking photos.

I was shown by a family friend who had been into photography for years that for cameras that used flash cubes, it was a good idea to keep a dead one around for shooting low light shots.

By placing a flash cube in most instamatic cameras, it automatically slowed the shutter speed down to either 1/30 or 1/15, and putting a dead (ie.- already used up) flash cube in the socket would help get those low light shots without having that front lit look.

I never knew that. I could have used that information about 40 years ago! Oh well.

Granted, this was not for shooting indoor low light sports, but did work indoors for many types of shots!

And would help an instamatic camera (or one of todays digital P&S cameras) get an overall shot at an event like last nights Opening ceremeony (which I fell asleep halfway through it).

--
J. D.
Colorado

--
'When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at
his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it.
Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two,
and I know it was not that blow that did it,
but all that had gone before.'
-- Jacob Riis (1849 - 1914)

Stay Well,
Pete K.

 

[CLOSED ACCOUNT]

Sammy Yousef wrote:

I'll save my grief for people I know and care about. I'm certainly not going to pretend I feel terrible.

What a truly pathetic response. I'm amazed that anyone would/could ever say such a thing.

I guess (according to your analogy) the world shouldn't have cared about the recent disaster in Haiti (as most of us don't actually "know" them)...and save our compassion and grief for only folks who are close to us.

How very un-human of you

I feel bad every time I hear of a trajedy (big or small) no matter where it is in the world. I share the pain of anyone killed in a senseless act or preventable accident, etc. After-all, WE are part of the collective...ie: humanity. To not have feelings towards such an event is so cold, insensitive, and pathologically numb.

Especially as this poor guys death was so graphic, on TV and viewed by people from around the globe. It has left a sombre mood in Whilster and across Canada.

I find your attitude so repugnant that I had to speak my mind here.

KEV

 

[mamallama]

What does it say about you that you defend ignorance so eloquently. The whole idea that you need to be a photographer to understand a couple of basics about how the camera works is ridiculous. It doesn't require a degree in photography to put out a bit of basic information.

Canada's gorgeous. I'd love to see the Canadian Alps any other time.

I guess you took a P&S flash calculation classes rather than regular school?

Now that's funny! A priceless comment to someone who is calling other people stupid.

--mamallama

 

[DemiLion]

Sammy Yousef wrote:

I'll save my grief for people I know and care about. I'm certainly not going to pretend I feel terrible.

What a truly pathetic response. I'm amazed that anyone would/could ever say such a thing.

I guess (according to your analogy) the world shouldn't have cared about the recent disaster in Haiti (as most of us don't actually "know" them)...and save our compassion and grief for only folks who are close to us.

How very un-human of you

I feel bad every time I hear of a trajedy (big or small) no matter where it is in the world. I share the pain of anyone killed in a senseless act or preventable accident, etc. After-all, WE are part of the collective...ie: humanity. To not have feelings towards such an event is so cold, insensitive, and pathologically numb.

Especially as this poor guys death was so graphic, on TV and viewed by people from around the globe. It has left a sombre mood in Whilster and across Canada.

I find your attitude so repugnant that I had to speak my mind here.

KEV

If you take the relevant post from Sammy into account, rather than a fraction of it, then I have to agree with him.

Whilst the death of a young athlete is extremely sad, it happens.

One of the major downsides of the internet (and to a certain extent modern life), is the concept of collective grief. We saw the first vestiges of this in Britain with the death of Diana, and it has multiplied in intensity since then.

I can feel sympathy for his team and his family, but I certainly don't share their pain. To imagine that I could get close to that would be arrogant and out of place.

Sport can be dangerous. Take a moment of thought maybe, but grieve?

 

[mamallama]

Sounds like some older person who's isolated and very critical of everyone except himself.

--mamallama

 

[bill henry]

DUD, you get more mileage from your trols than my truc gets on a set of new tires.

 

[CLOSED ACCOUNT]

I can feel sympathy for his team and his family, but I certainly don't share their pain.

So, you never feel total empathy, and put yourself into THAT scenario for a while (mentally) and relate to it on a intimate human level?

Well, I do., and think it's an important part of our collective, inherent experience as a species.

IF we didn't share the pain of human tragedy we would not have the motivation and desire to help/assist others (that we do not know) in times of natural disaster, accident, injustice, even war, etc.

For example,

When you hear of a child (on the TV) that has been raped-murdered by some nutbar abductor, etc - doesn't it kick you in the gut and make you "share" (from a distance) that pain on a purely human level?

Man, I even feel bad when I see a deer laying by the side of the road killed by a truck. Why? because all life is equally precious, etc.

I guess some folks are far more emotionally colder/numb than others...

KEV