# How would you photograph this near dark event?



## jdramirez (May 11, 2015)

I was just killing time on Craigs List and I saw an event where they needed a photographer for a Glo Run. The powder color runs destroy cameras/lenses... and this is only marginally better (lasers). 



> Photographer needed for The Glo Run Harrisburg at Carlisle Fairgrounds on 4/11 from 7p to 10p.
> 
> Photographer must be able to shoot action shots at night of glow themed run without over blasting with flash. Must have the correct equipment and meet specific shot requirements.
> 
> Drone photography is preferred.



I have no idea how much they would pay... but I would guess that most pro photogs that have a f/1.2 lens and a 6D/5D mkiii might ask for more, but that is neither here nor there.

I went to their facebook page



> https://www.facebook.com/TheGloRun?fref=ts



and I saw some shots... they were grainy... and I suppose it was fine considering. But if you aren't allowed to use 2nd curtain flash... then I guess you could expect to those underexposed types of shots. 

But it is a run... so I was thinking... ok... maybe iso 12800 and f/1.2, manual focus or just using the center AF point, or maybe manual plus live view... But @ 1/30 of a second, there will be blur... 

So if you have still posed shots... the blacklight exposes the facepaint... so how do you get a good shot doing this? 

And having said all that... their February 11 post seems to have lasers which could destroy a camera's sensor... so under no circumstances would I considering doing something like this... but... I still like the puzzle of how to get solid shots out of it.

So maybe in post... over expose a little, select for the faces, and then play with the sliders to raise the shadows... lower the brights... Ugh. 

I can't think of a way to get really good shots that I would be proud of...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 11, 2015)

I love to do low light photography, but I'm a bit stumped by that one as well. 

Lasers are more of a risk to video than stills, but if one hits the sensor during the brief time the shutter is open, it might cause a streak. Since subjects are moving, a relative fast shutter speed is needed, at least 1/250 sec by my standards. That helps reduce the laser issue, but the ISO might be pretty high.

Here is a play shot lighted by UV lights (pretty intense ones) at ISO 25600 f/2.8 and 1/160 sec. It came out pretty noisy, I could clean it up, but its not pretty.


----------



## jdramirez (May 11, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


>



I like that, because your subject is the cat and to a limited extent the girl, but we can see the basic outline of her... so she doesn't have to be crisp. 

The shots I saw on FB, they were of people, more specifically, of their face... and that raises the bar. A picture of someone running with a little motion blur, with the course being the subject... and the person being just part of the embiance. But when we get to faces... that's tougher. I did some 2nd curtain efforts of my daughter and her friends on an amusement park ride... and I wanted to like the shots... but I didn't. Just that whole face thing.


----------



## martti (May 24, 2015)

No flash but they say nothing about a light source such as a led screen.
Whatever, they seem like an easy going bunch probably not liable to squeeze anybody's balls if they see a good effort combined with reasonable results. A drone with a LED light source? Like in the Matrix...that could be way cool...blue LEDs...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 24, 2015)

martti said:


> No flash but they say nothing about a light source such as a led screen.
> Whatever, they seem like an easy going bunch probably not liable to squeeze anybody's balls if they see a good effort combined with reasonable results. A drone with a LED light source? Like in the Matrix...that could be way cool...blue LEDs...



With lasers mostly sweeping upward, I'd think a camera sensor would have a high probability of being toast if the drone was in the area. Laws are also getting much tighter about flying drones. * Flying them at night is illegal, for example.

*The liability from one crashing into a crowd of people might make for expensive insurance, if you could even get insurance.


----------



## martti (May 24, 2015)

"It was you to me who taught 
In Jersey anything's legal as long as you don't get caught."
(from Bob Dylan's 'Tweeter and the Monkey Man')


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 2, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I love to do low light photography, but I'm a bit stumped by that one as well.
> 
> Lasers are more of a risk to video than stills, but if one hits the sensor during the brief time the shutter is open, it might cause a streak. Since subjects are moving, a relative fast shutter speed is needed, at least 1/250 sec by my standards. That helps reduce the laser issue, but the ISO might be pretty high.
> 
> Here is a play shot lighted by UV lights (pretty intense ones) at ISO 25600 f/2.8 and 1/160 sec. It came out pretty noisy, I could clean it up, but its not pretty.



UV or black light? There's a huge difference. I feel sorry for the eyes of the actors or anyone close if UV.
https://www.ehs.washington.edu/rsononion/uvlight.shtm


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 3, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> UV or black light? There's a huge difference. I feel sorry for the eyes of the actors or anyone close if UV.
> https://www.ehs.washington.edu/rsononion/uvlight.shtm



Black light is UV. It has a limited range of frequencies that fall in the UV category. 

A black light, also referred to as a UV-A light, Wood's light, or simply ultraviolet light, is a lamp that emits long wave (UV-A) ultraviolet light and not much visible light.[1][2][3][4] The lamp has a violet filter material, either on the bulb or in a separate glass filter in the lamp housing, which blocks most visible light and allows through UV,[3] so the lamp has a dim violet glow when operating.[5][6] Black light bulbs which have this filter have a lighting industry designation that includes the letters "BLB".[3][5]

A second type of bulb, which is also called a black light, produces ultraviolet but does not have the filter material, so it produces more visible light and has a blue color when operating.[3][4][5] These are made for use in "bug zapper" insect traps and are identified by the industry designation "BL".[5][6]

Black light sources may be specially designed fluorescent lamps, mercury vapor lamps, light-emitting diodes, lasers, or incandescent lamps.[5][6] In medicine, forensics, and some other scientific fields, such a light source is referred to as a Wood's lamp (named after Robert Williams Wood).

Although many other types of lamp emit ultraviolet light with visible light, black lights are essential when UV-A light without visible light is needed, particularly in observing fluorescence,[4][5] the colored glow that many substances emit when exposed to UV. Black lights are employed for decorative and artistic lighting effects, diagnostic and therapeutic uses in medicine,[3] the detection of substances tagged with fluorescent dyes, rock-hunting, the detection of counterfeit money, the curing of plastic resins, and attracting insects.[4] Strong sources of long-wave ultraviolet light are used in tanning beds.[4] Although the low power UV-A emitted by black lights is not a hazard to skin or eyes and can be viewed without protection, powerful ultraviolet sources present dangers and require personal protective equipment such as goggles and gloves.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_light


----------



## martti (Jun 3, 2015)

any news of what happened?


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 3, 2015)

martti said:


> any news of what happened?



For the event? No clue. I just saw the advertisement and thought they were asking the impossible.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jun 4, 2015)

Optical viewfinders and lasers together are a bad, bad idea without coordination of the lighting engineer and your friendly neighbourhood laser safety expert; I'll bet this gig has neither.

Jim


----------



## deleteme (Jun 4, 2015)

I think you are ovethinking the issue.
Note that they already have some images.Check out their website. They have a ton of images they are happy enough post. They were taken by anyone from a pro to a complete amateur with a P&S AFAIK.
I get called to all sorts of events with funky lighting. I have a digital camera. I test. Sometimes flash with ambient works. Sometimes ambient alone works.

You will never get perfect out of this but you will get usable.
As far as pricing, they are on CL. They probably expect to get a lot of coverage for $50 or photo credit. Who knows?They are a business seemingly vaguely modeled on the Rock-n-Roll marathon business. Don't expect real money.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 4, 2015)

I know the event is over, but in relation to camera settings, I thought the concept of ISO was largely outdated these days? Wouldn't you just set the ISO to the camera's native ISO, the shutter speed to a speed that will generally allow a sharp image (let's say 1/125s), and the aperture to something wide enough to let in a bit of light (say f/2.8 or wider) and then selectively adjust the exposure in post production?


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 4, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> I know the event is over, but in relation to camera settings, I thought the concept of ISO was largely outdated these days? Wouldn't you just set the ISO to the camera's native ISO, the shutter speed to a speed that will generally allow a sharp image (let's say 1/125s), and the aperture to something wide enough to let in a bit of light (say f/2.8 or wider) and then selectively adjust the exposure in post production?



Sure... I could easily set the iso to 128K, aperture to f/1.2, and the shutter speed to 1/100 or even push it @ 1/60... but I my point is that you are exposing for the stupid glow bands and black uv light that is being reflected off of the face paint... and you are generally missing photos of the person... which I think seems like poor portrait photography.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 5, 2015)

I skimmed the thread and I guess I agree that you're over thinking it and at this point I think it is a missed opportunity. If I had the time and that same chance, I would have gone to the event, had fun, done the best job I could while I pushed my skills a bit with the decent gear I had to use and then discovered the best I could do in post.

Think about it this way, it's your hobby and this is a great chance to play. You're an above average photog with above average gear. There are lots of young attractive people in glowing neon who want to smile for you and have their pictures taken. What do you have to lose? And who would do the job better in your place? (If that even matters.)

Next time, if you have the time, just do it! The worst that happens is the pictures aren't perfect. No one is perfect anyway. What pictures are ever perfect? Heck, I can't shoot a perfect picture in a studio half the time. And then I shoot one out on a campout in the sticks. So go figure! You just never know!


----------



## Berowne (Jun 5, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I skimmed the thread and I guess I agree that you're over thinking it and at this point I think it is a missed opportunity. If I had the time and that same chance, I would have gone to the event, had fun, done the best job I could while I pushed my skills a bit with the decent gear I had to use and then discovered the best I could do in post.
> 
> Think about it this way, it's your hobby and this is a great chance to play. You're an above average photog with above average gear. There are lots of young attractive people in glowing neon who want to smile for you and have their pictures taken. What do you have to lose? And who would do the job better in your place? (If that even matters.)
> 
> Next time, if you have the time, just do it! The worst that happens is the pictures aren't perfect. No one is perfect anyway. What pictures are ever perfect? Heck, I can't shoot a perfect picture in a studio half the time. And then I shoot one out on a campout in the sticks. So go figure! You just never know!



Completely right. Nothing is perfect anyway. But i would never-ever use my gear to shot a Glo run! The powder can destrouy camera and lenses. There was a blog-post from Roger showing the color-powder within the lenses! 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/05/how-to-ruin-your-gear-in-5-minutes-without-water 

I would just buy a throw-away-camera for lets say 10€ and use it. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 5, 2015)

Berowne said:


> Completely right. Nothing is perfect anyway. But i would never-ever use my gear to shot a Glo run! The powder can destrouy camera and lenses. There was a blog-post from Roger showing the color-powder within the lenses!
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/05/how-to-ruin-your-gear-in-5-minutes-without-water
> 
> ...



Wow Andy, that's pretty amazing. I'm glad I looked at the link. I have to assume however that as long as a prime lens was used, the internal issue at least should be mitigated. (No zoom lens pumping the dust inside.) I know for a fact that some photographers shoot this kind of thing (event variations but same big mess though) with good gear. They wrap everything up well beforehand.

If I shot something like this often, I would just get a more weather sealed camera (7D-II maybe?) like the Pentax rigs or Olympus OM-D stuff. Then use prime lenses and wash it all off when I was finished.

Now the other issues is breathing all that crap... esp if you're running and breathing heavily. Eww! Who thought up this crap? Black lights, night time and wearing fun things that glow is great, but why have the dust? I guess I just haven't been to one before so I don't get it.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 5, 2015)

1. Underwater housing
2. HEPA U17 filter respirator
3. Eye protection

If you need this to survive the event, you might want to pass. 

I wonder if the participants of these events have thought this through?


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 5, 2015)

Berowne said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > I skimmed the thread and I guess I agree that you're over thinking it and at this point I think it is a missed opportunity. If I had the time and that same chance, I would have gone to the event, had fun, done the best job I could while I pushed my skills a bit with the decent gear I had to use and then discovered the best I could do in post.
> ...



I don't think they use powder, which is colored corn starch (I believe), I think it is just glow bracelets and uv light. 

I did see that article before... and it doesn't matter if it is a prime or if there is a filter, the granuales of corn starch are so fine that they find their way right through all of the weather proofing. It is messed up.


----------



## Khufu (Jun 6, 2015)

I know this has all been and gone and I'm about to do that thing that's the opposite of answering, by saying what I absolutely wouldn't use (ha! Sorry..) but...

SONY a7s

This thing's pretty pathetic and I'm so disappointed and baffled by the amount of apparent success this thing has had!

From what I gather, this is only a usable tool if you want an unnatural dynamic range compressed into a low contrast image.
It apparently shoots some 14 or 15 stops of light, which it may well do, BUT the first few stops have very few sampled variables of intensity, which are WAY too far apart, which is where all the banding/posterizing complaints come from... this PoS is going straight back on eBay. It's no good for anything low key or dare I say "Low Light" if you happen to be someone who intends to shoot things IN low light and to look like pictures of subjects and scenes in low light... But if you're crushing the hell out of your image to get the sun and it's flares is a nice, mellow orange and a troll under the shadow of a bridge all within a product with a contrast range spanning a few stops, sure, grab an.a7s!

Apologies for the rant - I'm a bit bitter about this disgustingly expensive, highly unprofessional bit of kit


----------



## Khufu (Jun 6, 2015)

Following that, here's some "creative" (/potentially purpose-defeating) options that come to mind 

- Switch to Monochrome and shoot some jpegs whilst smashing that High ISO with Shapness boosted and High ISO NR turned off (generally blurs stuff to help with splotchy colour noise, so off you'll get gainer, sharper images in B/W!) - straight out ofcam product for sh*tty paying gig: BAM! though they might not want BW... But I use the EOS M and 22/2 like this all the time for social occasions and people really get off over the quality, "DoF" and alls 

- Shoot video so you can play with focus and see what of your 24-30 fps at 1080 linrs of resolution are way more usable than your 12-50mp of unfocussed tripe 

- Small/low power flash and still fairly high ISO etc.. Maybe off cam with one of those cheap, springy hotshoe cables offa' ebay!

- Rip out those pesky filters from inside your camera, get yourself a big torch and IR filters/gels for it or for flashes and shoot in thr dark... With AAAAAALL the light


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 11, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > UV or black light? There's a huge difference. I feel sorry for the eyes of the actors or anyone close if UV.
> ...



Thanks! I've used and serviced very powerful UV lighting in an industrial setting for years, especially in food manufacturing and printed circuit board manufacturing. Never realized that a "black light" was UV-A. However, I have never heard them referred to in the common nomenclature as UV lights, only as "black lights" (because of the filter, I guess).


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 9, 2015)

blah... blah... just something easy to reference for Helen...


----------

