|
joat mon posted:I'd get an SR-T 102, with second choice being a 101. Don't bother with the 100. Agreed. I have, and learned on, an SRT-101. My friend has a 102. Mine is good, his is better. Lenses are great and cheap.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
So this was posted to a Facebook Buy/Sell group.  ]You know it's quality because Comic Sans. XTimmy fucked around with this message at 12:35 on Jun 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 12:32
|
|
|
Yeah, it really does jump out at you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
The best part is the fake CE mark also using comic sans. But I'm sure it has the very best components inside!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
it sounds like a clown laughing as you turn the power dial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Hey thread, I'm curious if anyone has recommendations or opinions about waterproof cameras? I spend a lot of time in a kayak and have an old waterproof Olympus something or other that's horribly beat up and fogged after years of use and is ready for retirement. I'm curious what the latest, greatest options are. If possible, a camera that allows me to do basic metering and set aperture/shutter priority and speeds without going through a half dozen menus would be great. My Olympus was just a glorified point and shoot which was usually fine, but often produced sub-par results in situations with complicated lighting. The Nikon 1 AW1 seems kinda close to what I'm looking for, but the reviews from the Nikon site itself lead me to believe it's not as waterproof as it should be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
I think the consensus is that the Olympus TG-5 is the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
yeah the oly tough series is fantastic these days
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
Can I ask a business question? A client contacted me for an engagement proposal session that would last about an hour. He asked for my rate and I told him $300 in total for the shooting and editing. I would have to rent another camera and lens (Canon Mk3, 70-200mm) to be able to shoot the proposal well without being in their face during it which would have cost $180 for 3 days (smallest period I could find) so I'd only be making $120 from the shoot. He said that he couldn't justify $300 on it and asked if I would reduce the cost if he edited the RAW's instead of me as he is a photographer and knows Lightroom. I thought that was a crazy thing to ask a fellow photographer especially as a discount rather than a huge price increase. I said no. He then asked if I would reduce my fee if I only shot them for 15 minutes instead of an hour but at this point, I didn't feel it was worth dealing with him personally or having $4000 of rented equipment around my neck just for 15 minutes of shooting for a tiny profit margin. I also didn't feel like I could do a good job with my current equipment without ruining their proposal moment and I'm not hurting for portfolio pieces anyway right now to do it for no profit. Was asking for $300 unreasonable in the first place on my part?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Can I ask a business question?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Sounds like you missed a chance to drop your rates so you'll have a shot at that sweet $500 wedding job that will follow. drat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Thanks folks! I appreciate the input. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Can I ask a business question? No, he's nickel-and-diming you. gently caress him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
What is with people asking "Can you give me the raws I want to edit them myself"? I've had a couple of people ask me that and it's just incredibly off-putting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:What is with people asking "Can you give me the raws I want to edit them myself"? I've had a couple of people ask me that and it's just incredibly off-putting. When I asked my wedding photographer that, I was terrified of what garbage other wedding photographers were doing to pictures. It's also kind of like owning the negative - what you would ideally be archiving and hoping you never lose. That was 10 years ago though. I'd probably just pick a photographer that didn't suck now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
If they want the raws it better be in the contract, and stipulate that any edits must have a watermark to the effect of "photo taken by X, post processing by Y."  Our photographer gave us a DVD of the raw files, we've done literally nothing with them. She took some nice looking shots too, knew her stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:What is with people asking "Can you give me the raws I want to edit them myself"? I've had a couple of people ask me that and it's just incredibly off-putting. We got raws for our wedding pictures. Editing pictures is something we enjoy doing together as a hobby and being able to go through everything together was fantastic. The stuff the photographers edited was great and that’s what we posted online, but the raws are a goldmine of background expressions and reactions that would probably never make it to final edits. Most people aren’t going to care about the 10 different rapid fire shots of our first kiss that are mostly identical. For us, each one of those shots has somebody different in the background at just the right moment and every one is special to us. My wedding pictures are my memories, and I want all of them. Good, bad, and ugly. The photographers asked us not to tag them on any shots they didn’t edit. And they deleted any raws they deemed unacceptable. But there are still a enough great-moment-but-a-bit-out-of-focus shots in there, and when we look back at them in 15 years it’s not going to matter to us. Most photographers just politely declined when asked about raws, but a lot more than I thought were okay with providing them with various stipulations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
I think if I knew that only the couple were looking at the photos then I’d be ok with them having all of my raws but otherwise gently caress that. Part of being a good photographer is choosing what you present and that is what distinguishes good shots from failed ones that look like snapshots since practically everyone has good shots along side poor ones. I would never want to present every photo I took from a gig but I can understand how a couple from a wedding might really want to see everything the photographer captured that day - it is just from a business aspect and how we choose to present ourselves that I would never agree to have someone take all of my raws and show them to other people. As for editing I don’t know if I would go along with that either. I would have to know the person pretty well to know how they were going to edit it, again mainly to do with other potential clients seeing pictures I took in a way that I wouldn’t want them to see. If they took it and busted all the sliders right off the monitor and dutch angled every shot 45 degrees with the crop tool I wouldn’t want any part of that and I have to assume that is how many people would choose to edit my raws if I gave them the opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Took some photos with my Nikon D7000, and my dad also took some photos with a borrowed entry-level Nikon DSLR. But he shot in JPG (not knowing any better really), while I always have used RAW. Now when taking a look at our combined shots in Lightroom, I'm pretty shocked at how I had forgotten how much easier it is to fix botched exposure or white balance for raw shots. The information is just gone in the JPGs. No news to people here I'm sure, but man, if you don't need the FPS, always shoot RAW.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
The reason why I am uncomfortable with the whole "just give me the raws and I'll edit them thing" is that if the photographer were any other kind of artist, it would be like their client asking them to hand over their half-finished work for them to complete. Some photos can be published SOOC with zero post-processing but that's more of an exception than a rule, and I treat a RAW photo as half-done work. It feels as if a client doesn't respect your skills (even if they're not aware of it).
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
rio posted:As for editing I don’t know if I would go along with that either. I would have to know the person pretty well to know how they were going to edit it, again mainly to do with other potential clients seeing pictures I took in a way that I wouldn’t want them to see. If they took it and busted all the sliders right off the monitor and dutch angled every shot 45 degrees with the crop tool I wouldn’t want any part of that and I have to assume that is how many people would choose to edit my raws if I gave them the opportunity. We heard this a lot and I just can’t wrap my head around it. I totally understand not wanting your name to be associated with somebody else’s edits, but I can gently caress up a jpeg just as easily as I can gently caress up a raw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
tk posted:We heard this a lot and I just can’t wrap my head around it. I totally understand not wanting your name to be associated with somebody else’s edits, but I can gently caress up a jpeg just as easily as I can gently caress up a raw. I think asking for raws implies that the client wants to gently caress with it though. I put up a picture I took at a trendy Manhattan restaurant, and they reposted it. They gave me credit, but they didn't ask for permission, plus they cropped it and turned up the saturation and contrast on it  It's really not worth pursuing it, but it just brought to the front of my mind again the question of why people outside of a creative profession/hobby think it's okay to just gently caress with your stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
Because all the photographer does is take pictures, duh. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
404notfound posted:It's really not worth pursuing it, but it just brought to the front of my mind again the question of why people outside of a creative profession/hobby think it's okay to just gently caress with your stuff. It's likely more out of ignorance than malice, but a lot of places figure they're in the clear to do whatever so long as they credit the original creator.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
I make sure to put in my contracts that the final image I give to them is it and they aren't allowed to perform any further edits to it. The first person I ever worked with for family portraits used ms paint to paste family members into the pictures and posted them on facebook crediting me and I was a bit miffed but I was dumb and new and hadn't made them sign a contract so my fault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
404notfound posted:I think asking for raws implies that the client wants to gently caress with it though. Usually when it comes to insta, if you tag (rather than just hashtag it in comments) the company or whatever, they take that as you giving them permission to share it but lol I don't know why'd they'd crop it and gently caress around like that, the picture was good as it was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
404notfound posted:I think asking for raws implies that the client wants to gently caress with it though. They’re going to gently caress with it anyways. When you post to Facebook, Instagram, et al, there’s steps in the process that essentially encourage you to gently caress with the picture. In this example, my guess is they took a screenshot of your post, reposted it with the default square Instagram crop, and hit one of the filters. That’s just how people post to stuff. The crop blows. The filter sucks too, but it’s not going to impact people’s viewing of the picture nearly as much as the myriad of screen/lighting conditions that people look at Instagram on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:I make sure to put in my contracts that the final image I give to them is it and they aren't allowed to perform any further edits to it. The first person I ever worked with for family portraits used ms paint to paste family members into the pictures and posted them on facebook crediting me and I was a bit miffed but I was dumb and new and hadn't made them sign a contract so my fault. Can you share at least just one I wanna see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
tater_salad posted:Can you share at least just one I wanna see.  They also shopped the pillar on the left and moved her MIL for some reason. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
jeezus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Wow that's seamless editing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:
Was this serious or a joke? Like I know people will do this and be like “lol look who made it out *wink wink*” with obvious bad photoshopping of people into the photo. And why would they reposition the woman on the left? At first I thought they just wanted to cut her out but then I saw that they just moved her inexplicably.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
it looks like it was cropped to fit as a facebook cover photo. probably explains why they moved the MIL too, to get her out of the profile photo box area.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Was this also one of your clients:
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:
God dammit, grandma. What are you looking at?  e: Probably checking out the hosed up pillar in the edit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:it looks like it was cropped to fit as a facebook cover photo. probably explains why they moved the MIL too, to get her out of the profile photo box area. That... actually makes a lot of sense. It's still inexcusably bad though
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:
Thank you for making my day better... Is the lower right a picture at the same place. "Jen and Steven take a picture of you at [place] by the columns and I can put you in there no problem" Still isn't as bad as this edit 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
tater_salad posted:Thank you for making my day better... Is the lower right a picture at the same place. Wow that is horrifying or hilarious depending on the intent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:
lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
rio posted:Wow that is horrifying or hilarious depending on the intent. It was someone who charged the subjects of the photo money for their services as a professional photographer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2018 21:46
|
|
