
Peter Norvig on dance photography - gbog
http://norvig.com/dance-photography.html?
======
andrewvc
Interesting article on learning to shoot but....

To me, taking SLRs everywhere turns you from a participant to a documentarian.
Additionally, and I say this as a former professional assistant and current
serious amateur, SLRs for family stuff are _really_ inconvenient, and often
times just collect dust. Lastly, SLRs can take intimacy away (though they can
add gravitas).

You know, photographing people is really equal parts psychological and visual.
Avedon was a master of the psychological for instance, shooting people
repeatedly in the same style, but with wildly different effect. SLRs to me up
the psychological stakes taking what you're doing from photography to capital
P Photography with a whole raft of associations there between you and your
subjects.

Lastly, from a technical perspective, sensors and lenses on cheaper cameras
are pretty good these days, and generally when you shooting you don't want
full manual. I can shoot using the zone system if I need to (well, if I hadn't
sold my light meter years ago), but with digital photography these days, the
two controls I _really_ use are Aperture or Shutter Priority and exposure
adjust. If I _really_ want to lock the exposure (for a complex strobe setup or
super-consistent color) manual's nice, but it's rarely that important for
casual photographers.

That said, learning to shoot an SLR is fun, just beware the significant risk
that it'll wind up rarely used on a shelf.

Here's some more compact cameras I'd recommend:

Panasonic Lumix LX5

Nikon S95

Canon Powershot G12

Fuji X100 (My baby, but pricey, and it's a camera with some intentional
limitations many may not like).

~~~
numlocked
Two things to add to this: 1) A way to mitigate the risk of winding up with a
camera sitting on the shelf is to start off with a used SLR from a few years
ago. If, six months in, you don't like it, you can almost surely get your
money back out of it on Craigslist.

2) As to bringing it everywhere, this quote from Jay Maisel jumps to mind:
"You should always carry your camera with you because it’s easier to take
pictures that way." Just depends on the attitude I guess. That said, I
completely agree with the documentarian comment - if you become "that guy"
(the photographer), you have to consciously remember to participate in things
like family events, and not just shoot them. It sounds ridiculous, but it's
true.

~~~
adyus
There should be a collection of Jay Maisel sayings published as a book. Throw
in a couple of Arnold Newman quips, and you've got a bestseller :)

All humor aside, there is much wisdom in these sayings. W.Eugene Smith's
"Available light is any damn light that's available!" comes to mind.

I think technological development in photography is both a blessing and a
curse. Sometimes it gets in the way of taking really great photos, despite its
intentions.

------
stevelosh
As a dancer and photographer in my spare time, I've thought a lot about this
too. I've written a couple of articles about it, though neither is as detailed
as this:

<http://stevelosh.com/blog/2008/04/shooting-girl-jam/>

<http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/02/how-i-shoot-dances/>

~~~
sravfeyn
But, no more do we need these photography tutorials now that we have lytro :P
(<http://www.lytro.com/>).

BTW, is that the Peter Norvig from AI-Stanford!!

~~~
jeswin
I don't really think lytro is that big a deal.

1\. The big advantage I see is that there is no need to focus, but auto-focus
is becoming really quick these days.

2\. I can't find a picture where I feel like changing the focused object after
taking the shot. I focused on something because I wanted it that way.

3\. Aside of the focusing, an SLR gives you way more control.

Lytro however, is affordable and could still sell well.

------
azov
The article could be more properly called "Using dancers to illustrate a short
photography 101 course".

As to dance-related tips. Unless you're planning to set up an external
lighting kit (in which case you probably know what you're doing and don't need
much advice):

1\. Shot them when they don't move. Most dances have accent points when
performers stand still, and it's usually the most visually interesting poses
anyway.

2\. Use panning (this works well in some dances, like waltz, less so in
others).

Other than that it's just basic indoor photography technique.

~~~
gbog
> photography 101 course

I did not follow any 101 course but if they are anything like French
education, then I disagree with you.

A course about photography would be made by someone having this topics as its
main focus in life since 10 years or more, it would start with some history,
some physic, some chemistry, maybe some mathematics grounds and gather them
all in a comprehensive photography topic, etc. Even a short course summary on
three pages would reflect this comprehensiveness.

While Peter Norvig's article is a simple exploration path. One start from one
simple easy to understand problem (here it is taking good pics of his daughter
dancing, in another paper it was solving all sudoku puzzles) and go to its
resolution in a few steps. The sequence of steps he chose is interesting in
itself, and maybe it is what feels the most "scientific" here: all of them are
necessary to attain the goal. But while Norvig guide us on this path, he also
and "by-the-way" shows some interesting landscapes in the far. It is not a
"I'll explain you all about x", it is more "I walked this path and some other
might be interested", and that what's make his article interesting to me.

------
cbabraham
Excellent article. The one topic that could use some more emphasis is sensor
size. Understanding crop factors is important since it affects what your field
of view will be for a given lens. Not to mention the difference in image
quality and low light performance between crop and full frame sensors is huge.

Also, I would axe the two examples of photoshop filter/color effects on page
three. The article is full of great photos and then it ends with some kind of
horrible filter effects.

------
statictype
Having just recently bought a DSLR, and trying to learn as much as possible
about photography, this is great stuff. I wish Peter Norvig would write about
every topic I ever have a passing interest in.

I'm envious of his ability to distill a complex scenario into simple steps.

------
mark_l_watson
Great! Everything Peter does he seems to aim at perfection, using a scientific
approach to get there.

After years of photographing my grandchildren using a pocket camera, I finally
bought a good rig this year: a Canon T2i with an excellent 25-104mm L-series
lens. Amazing how much a good rig helps! Lessons help a lot also: I have a
friend who is a professional videographer and photographer and we started
doing photo-taking hikes that are also lessons.

~~~
andrewvc
That's great that you're really getting into photography, there's nothing like
working alongside other photographers to really get good critiques about both
technique and aesthetics.

Just remember though, science will only get you a very short distance in
photo, it's an art based mostly on intuition, so just try and get the science
part to the point where you don't think about it so much, to the point where
it's automatic.

Some people take the science part of photography as being 90% of what it is.
They shoot beautiful, extremely boring nature and studio photographs that no
one really wants to look at. Be careful about overloading your brain with
technical stuff, if you learn a bunch of new techniques, be sure to pare them
down and keep sizable majority of your mental capacity available to relax and
be creative.

~~~
mark_l_watson
Thanks, you are correct about concentrating on the creative side of
photography and videography. My friend who is a pro videographer gives me many
ideas to work with (different camera angles, composition, using curves in
roads in otherwise nature shots, etc.), so I am being scripted, but his advice
seems good. I am an amature musician and I am starting to also use my own
music for videos and slide shows.

------
tibbon
I was doing some pretty serious photography for a while, and I can't find a
single thing I can find fault with that this guy says.

About the only thing I can say for most people is to push the ISO a little
higher than he recommends. The D7000 I have has a very usable ISO1600, and
even ISO3200 is usable depending on the subject and purpose.

The purpose of course really varies. I caught this shot shown in the NYT Bits
Blog ([http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/roflthing-draws-
the...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/roflthing-draws-the-internet-
celebrities/)) with a D200, which had much worse high ISO noise handling than
even a D3100, but this shot was at ISO3200. Yet, it was good enough in
lighting, purpose and composition to have the NYT use it.

The hardest things I've ever shot were live indie concert gigs in small clubs.
The lighting is often terrible, quarters are cramped (at a well attended show
at least) and there's often no side/back stage to shoot from. What's worse is
if someone's running the lighting board, its likely that things are strobing
and changing constantly. It becomes super hard to just have your camera on
auto, because its often wrong then, and yet its hard to meter yourself if
things change nonstop. Consequently, I end up shooting about 100-200 photos
for a 1-2 hour set at minimum, but end up getting 5-6 pretty good shots out of
it.

The long term solutions here are better glass (prices not moving down, and
this is a market that could use some disruption), and also higher ISO sensors
on cameras. I think I just saw Canon release some camera that in theory can
shoot at a max of ISO 2 million+. After a while this technology trickles down
to the consumer level. The iPhone 4S looks as good as many early DSLRs for
shooting at night. Some of these 4/3 systems are also pretty amazing for
quality/price.

------
timthorn
Shame he doesn't talk about flash at all - I understand that he may not be
able to use it in the performances he shoots, but learning to use flash
effectively is also a worthwhile skill. A good resource is
<http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/>

~~~
milkshakes
another hacker friendly (off-camera) flash photography resource is strobist at
<http://strobist.blogspot.com/>

------
wisty
I already know why a big sensor (DSLR) is good, and I know all about AV vs
speed. I didn't learn anything until part 6, which is on the second page. From
there:

\- Good hand held technique - tuck your elbows in for stability.

\- Exposure - if you don't mind a darker photo, you can dial down both the AV
and increase the speed. The way cameras are setup, you usually forget this.

\- More stuff about framing. I like his stuff about "room to move" - the
subjects next step should be in the frame.

It's good, but only if you read past the first page.

------
rewiter2011
now that we know more about photography, could someone teach that guy
something about post 1996 webdesign?

