Like a lot of dancers, I enjoy taking pictures of my friends as they compete, and have been considering upgrading to an SLR camera from a Zoom Point and Shoot.

What I'd like to know, first, is what set-ups have people found to have worked consistently. I've found for my point and shoot that 800 spd film, not using the longest zoom (any camera movement when taking the picture, causes a nice blur), and flash seems to take the best picture. Though I might try going back to 400 and see the difference in graininess. Also, taking it from the floor or up above typically gives a nice angle.

Secondly, when you are on the floor do you find camera flashes annoying?

I would have like another option on the poll: "I like it". When I was dancing on stage, I hated flashbulbs because they came out of a dark area and were distracting and disturbing. Ballroom comps in the US are in well-lit rooms, so a little flash here or there doesn't really change my vision. I like it, because I know someone's watching with serious attention -and they might be taking a picture of me! It gets me more "up", and I try to dance a little but more to where that flash is. Same when people call out, or look right at me and react - it's like a warm spot in the room, and it makes me dance better, live it more.

Did you ever consider using a digital camera? Now on they have very good sensitivity (I guess I've seen once 1600 ISO specified) so you should have NO flashes at all. This will feed both parties: photographers (they'll have pictures) AND dancers (they won't see flashes).


Ed

Wow, 1600 ISO! As for film: only when you go to specialized shops, you'll be able to buy them off the shelve, but even that's not guaranteed... Since film with a light sensitivity as high as 1600 ISO is not commonly used, you'd have to order (and they're not cheap...).

I can imagine a digital camera with high ISO values (such as 1600) being (very) expensive too.

I'm not sure what the results of a digital camera are like, but when using 1600 ISO for film on a SLR camera, your pictures can turn out very grainy because of the light sensitivity. Also, the risk of not using a flash with automatic settings on your camera (with this I mean shutter speed and diafragm), is that it can result into "moving" pictures, no matter what the ISO value of the film. (I doubt this will happen with 1600.)

You can always try though

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." - Horace

Sorry to have missed you, Laura. Was getting drunk in Napa, *yum* the bride that I was throwing a bachlorette party/wine trip for picked that day.

The problem I found with digital cameras is that lag time inbetween each picture as it renders and stores. But they do take great pictures. My dance instructor, through one of his students, hooked up with a guy who owns a 5 meg digitial. He took pictures of us at CityLights in SF(photos.yahoo.com/swdance). Sharp, man are they sharp. The neatest function was he could take 3 shots, boom-boom-boom with one click, so you get this moving montage when viewed in slide show format. But then he had to wait for the camera to catch up, and missed some decent shots.

I think that would drive me nuts. But then, It drives me nuts when I have a beautiful pose framed and I don't press the button down hard enough, and it doesn't take. *grumble

Okay, should've been: "When the lights are evenly spread across the room, it's ideal for taking pictures, as I have experienced."

Sorry

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." - Horace

What I'd like to know, first, is what set-ups have people found to have worked consistently.
For film, I use 400 ISO/ASA as I found them to work the best on well-lit floors. So far, I haven't tried 800 ISO/ASA... I have considered it, because I can't always walk up close and take the picture from a (let's say) 7 ft distance with flash. (That's what I do with 400 ISO/ASA film and they turn out well, when I take them from a distance they're very grainy.)

Because I want to play it safe, I use auto-focus and automatic settings for diafragm and shutter speed. Usually the diafragm is 5.6f and shutter speed 1/90. (With flash.)

What is a well-lit floor though? First of all, a floor of a light colour helps A LOT. When the lights are evenly spreaded across the room, it's ideal for taking pictures, as I have experienced. When the light is bright enough to read something at arm-distance, that's a well-lit floor.

Also, taking it from the floor or up above typically gives a nice angle.
I always take my pictures from the floor, (then again, there are no other options, usually, unless I stand on a table/chair ) it's the best way to capture the dancer's facial expressions as well, imho.

Secondly, when you are on the floor do you find camera flashes annoying?
I've asked about that, with several dancers too. They said that they do notice a flash, but they're not bothered by it, not even if you take a picture from a 7 ft distance. When my pictures turn out nice, I walk up to them and give them to the dancers. They give me a great show to watch, that's the least thing I can do in return

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." - Horace

I know a guy who has a top of the line digital camera that takes amazing action pictures, not grainy at all. It's a very pro-looking set-up, not just a digital "pocket-sized" camera. I have no idea how much it costs, but if The Ditz reminds me, I'll try to point her to the owner the next time we're at a dance comp (gee, like maybe today).

I have a mid-priced digital camera, and it takes beautiful pictures but the flash isn't powerful enough to make it to the dance floor, so everything comes out a little underexposed. I think there's something I can do in the settings to help this, though -- I admit I haven't even read the manual yet.

Laura