Some pics for Cindy Lauper fans... (1 Viewer)

[ManW_TheUncool]

Well, I finally uploaded some pics of the Cindy Lauper J&R promo mini-concert from a couple weeks ago. Thought maybe some of you might be interested to see them. Hope you enjoy them -- and let me know what you think.

Here are a couple samples to start you off:





http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong/cindy_lauper_at_jr_2004

Kind regards,

_Man_

PS: If you missed it from over a month ago, I also have some Blondie pics at similar venue (and there are lots of other pics there as well):

http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

 

[Chris Knox]

Very high quality, professional photographs. This coming from a photographer. Either your meter reads bang on or you have mastered the art of aperture/shutter speed. Very good balance and composition. I wouldn't be surprised if this was your livelihood. I'd like to see some of your landscapes.

Chris

 

[Colin Davidson]

I agree with Chris. Very nicely done!

 

[Richard Travale]

Well, I'm not a photographer or schooled in the art of photography but 'I knows what I likes' and I really like those photos. Particularly that first one.

 

[ChrisHeflen]

My wife told a couple of days ago that she heard a bird pooped in Cindi L's mouth while she was singing. I wonder, (if true) if it was at this concert and why didn't you get any pics of that?


I saw her in concert with Tina legs Turner and she was awesome, very cool, snd sounded great, not dumb like one would imagine from her earlier days.


Anyway, great pics! Very detailed.

 

[Dave Poehlman]

I've always had a thing for Cyndi... bird poop in her mouth or not. Those are nice pics.

 

[Philip_G]

There are some very nice photos on his homepage he linked.
I'm curious what he's using for a cam, digital? DSLR? 35mm scanned?

edit: says a nikon D70 on his homepage

 

[Phil_L]

She is incredible, thanks for the pics. Can you believe she is over 50??? Her voice amazing, I have always admired her instrument. She just came out with a new live DVD, I think I may check it out. the pics are great btw.

 

[Drew Bethel]

Not bad. Love the composition of the first pic. If I were to offer some constructive criticism: there is some hot-spotting on her forehead and face of the first pic.

The second pic needs better use of depth of field as the characters in the background are distracting - drawing my eyes away from the main subject.

 

[Luis Esp]

Beautiful photos! What camera are you using?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Hi, y'all.

Thanks for all the kind words as well as the constructive criticism. And as always, I enjoy the general chat that surrounds posted pics.

To answer a few questions, etc:

No, I don't do this as a profession, just a (somewhat?) "serious" hobby. It's been less than a year since I got more into photography than just shooting the occasional family event and the kids -- the Canon G3 was how I got started last year. Never been a real film shooter. Digital opened up a new artistic outlet for me -- I guess I've always been interested in visual imagery and such and have always had an interest in the arts though rather undeveloped for the most part. And yes, digital definitely makes postprocessing so much easier than film -- not that I've ever used an actual darkroom before. Also, home theater (and the cinema that goes w/ it) probably also helped me grow this relatively new interest as well.

As for the camera, it's the Nikon D70, which I've had since end of March. It's an awesome camera for those who want to get more serious and go w/ a DSLR. But do know that it's not just the body that counts. Good lenses are expensive and some pro-quality ones easily cost more than the $1K body. For these shots, I used a hefty, 3rd party tele zoom, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX -- it weighs ~3.5lb. For the previous Blondie shots, I used a Nikon 85mm f/1.8 prime. Those 2 lenses combined to cost about as much as the body itself.

And of course, it's not just the shooting equipment that matters. There's the postprocessing side too as well as whatever skills and artistic eye one has and/or develops. And I'm constantly learning and growing in all these things myself.

RE: the point about hot spot in 1st shot, yes, the original was a tad overexposed -- for some reason, my camera started up at +1 or so EV comp after I swapped batteries; maybe it happened while I fumbled to set up the monopod (my first). And the unintended EV comp lasted for several shots before I noticed. However, I decided that I actually liked the look for a few of them and decided to postprocess accordingly, which actually pushed the overexposure a tad more so in the 1st shot.

RE: the point about DoF, I guess I'm not as easily distracted by certain things/people in the background. For me, it depends. And in this case, I didn't really have much choice either as the lens was already wide open and zoomed to a relatively long focal length (w/ only a little room left over). It was essentially either take the shot available to me or not at all. But yes, if I had the option, I would've gone for a shallower DoF and/or compose to separate or leave out the background folks more like the 1st shot (or maybe not :wink: ).

Anyway, thanks again everyone for sharing your thoughts, for the side chat and for your kind words. And again, y'all are very welcome to drop by my galleries to see more.

Kind regards,

_Man_

 

[David McGough]

How about Tina Turners legs?? Do you have that pic??
or you have a site with any more of your fav pics?
nice work.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Lol! No Tina Turner legs unfortunately. How 'bout these instead?





Not exactly the kind you were looking for I guess... :wink:

_Man_

 

[David McGough]

The first one I would put in the hams section.
The second is ok. The shoes don't help her.
Thanks
David