Okay...here is one of my theatrical shots. This is what I do for a living. So, hopefully it is a bit better than my semi-serious photographs of friends. This shot was scanned from a rejected print. So, I am fully aware that the girl needs to be burnt in a little. The choreographer of the show has the final approved version. Let me know what you think of this shot. To give some context to the shot, I should say that my goals in theatrical photography are to capture the sense of movement with still images and to capture of drama of stage lighting. BTW, some of you might already have seen this pic in pdn. David Hou

-- David Hou (dna2367@hotmail.com), February 29, 2000

Answers

Wow...I did it...finally, the html thing worked. So, here is one more image.

-- David Hou (dna2367@hotmail.com), February 29, 2000.

Um..... looks like you need to burn in a little LESS.... all I see is a grey rectangle.

-- C Terry (yeti-man@webtv.net), February 29, 2000.

Me too! Gray rectangle X2!

-- Larry H. Smith (LarryHS@webtv.net), February 29, 2000.

Hmmm...this is weird...maybe the html thing is not working for me. This is a pain in the neck...There is got to be a easier way to upload an image.

-- David Hou (dna2367@hotmail.com), February 29, 2000.

Okay...I've posted the critique in pdn instead. Thanks.

-- David Hou (dna2367@hotmail.com), February 29, 2000.

David, This is what is wrong... it is the standard photo.net truncation of the last few characters of your post. It eliminated the closing angle bracket of your post. if you always write a few words after the image, you will be more assured that the image will show. I'll bet you are alreaddy in the habit of adding carrage returns or spaces after a text post... ya gotta do the same with an img tag. some browsers will be fine most will reject. it the browser has already uploaded the image though some other site it will show the picture anyways... it is hasn't it won't be able to interpret the src.... OK here come lots of blank spaces.....

-- grant groberg (grant@emeraldp.com), February 29, 2000.

I can see both images without problems.

David: I really like the first image. Sure it is a bit overexposed in the hightlights, but as you said that can (and has) been fixed in the printing.

The background (statue?) adds interest and context to the image (and seems to me to be lacking from the second image: it is not obvious that it is a theater. This may not be a problem if it is used on a poster or similar environment that sets the context).

Her whole pose is great, and I love the dress and the sense of movement in it. If anything, then I would have preferred a slightly longer exposure to give even more movement, but I'm not sure what she is doing at this moment and if it would work. (You tell me: you're the pro.)

I'm only slightly disturbed by the bag on her stomach -- is that part of her dress? It looks weird.

-- Allan Engelhardt (allane@cybaea.com), March 01, 2000.

Thanks, Grant. I will keep that in mind. Allan, Thanks for the comments. The background is another dancer. He is turning his hand very slowly, as if twirling the other dancer in front of him. She is moving quite fast but in circles on the spot. Good observation on the dress. It was not supposed to be like that, but the choreographer actually liked its baggy look. So, they decided to use it. The opera shot is certainly a much easier shot to make. It probably doesn't as much sense of movement as the first picture; however, I like it very much because of the interactions between the 2 characters. In a way, I feel the shot caught a moment which gave it temporal continuity, even if it is a really minor detail in this phtograph.

Thanks again to all who replied. I would be happy to hear further comments, advises, and criticisms.

-- David Hou (dna2367@hotmail.com), March 01, 2000.