|
Yeah, I know what you're saying. I usually bring a strobe, but this woman had a half hour free between teaching at MUN (University here in St. John's... yeah, she's a prof, too) and a hockey game. This was kind of spur of the moment. I don't remember if I dodged her entire body, I don't think I did... I know I dodged her face, but it was set to highlights (or mids) and I forgot to set it to shadows and do the other side. When I'm at my own machine, I'm going to redo it and re-upload it. Thanks for all of the critiques and stuff!
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Took this one a Roller Derby girl a while ago and people keep saying they like it. Late afternoon, but taken in the shade of a building before the match.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 22:49
|
|
|
angryhampster posted:I like the composition in that one ^, but it's pretty obvious that her face has been massively brightened. It looks fine to me. If you don't calibrate your monitor is probably way too bright.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It looks fine to me. If you don't calibrate your monitor is probably way too bright. Same here, I think it looks fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 23:55
|
|
|
when shooting on seamless white, how do you make the background come out black?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:when shooting on seamless white, how do you make the background come out black? Have enough distance between your subject and the background so that the light fallout renders it black. Using a small aperture and a fast shutter speed to limit how much light you get. Also, obviously light your subject independently from your background (which shouldn't be lit) but go here for a tutorial - http://www.zarias.com/?p=101 Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jan 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
So I think I've landed a job with a clothing company, and as they've seen I'm a photographer, I think they want me to shoot some more products on models. Never really done anything like this before, so any tips? I'm thinking of doing it outside, maybe renting an 85mm for the job. I can borrow some studio lighting if I need it. Also I guess I'll need model releases if they're going up on a website to sell a product?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2010 15:29
|
|
|
In the US yes. You should really be thinking about copyright too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2010 16:24
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:In the US yes. You should really be thinking about copyright too. As an employee taking pictures as part of his job, I'd assume the copyright would rest with his employer, making publicity rights/model releases the sticking point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2010 20:50
|
|
|
Maybe he should be try to retain it was what I was hinting at.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2010 11:48
|
|
|
Yeah, I'll look into the copyright thing. I'm mainly thinking about model releases right now, and anything else I might need. I'm in the UK so I don't know if I need a permit to shoot or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2010 16:55
|
|
|
I've wanted to do something like this for a while, but I'm lacking the balls. http://photojojo.com/content/photo-projects/how-to-shoot-street-portraits/ VVVV: pretty much just for the experience of having done it. Sure it's been done by lots of people before, but I haven't done it. Yet. psylent fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Jan 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 04:29
|
|
|
Why? Making portraits of strangers can be very interesting, provided that you make interesting photos. Following a formula from a website, which has been repeated ad nauseum, will give you nothing of value.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 04:34
|
|
|
Back when I was in school, my first photo class instructor wanted us to go take pictures of people on the sidewalk. The class was like "okay." And then he said no telephoto lenses, no photos of the back of people's heads, we had to engage them. You could feel the "oh gently caress what" feeling pass over. Most people fudged it and it was awful (including my attempts). However, I was not a major and knew didly loving squat about photography history and would have struggled to name any photographer other than Adams. I look back and am embarrassed. Like Reichstag mentions, it's so interesting to take pictures of people on the street (or in a park, or whatever). It's stupid to be nervous. loving do it, you'll get over yourself after doing it once or twice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 04:43
|
|
|
Going out and doing it your own way, without that crutch of instructions, will help you much more in the long-term. The pants-making GBS threads is important, getting out of your comfort zone, not gradually extending it. Asking the first person for their photo will be such a rush that you'll most likely flub the picture completely, and you'll probably love it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 05:01
|
|
|
This was a snapshot, but I really like it. It took a while to convince him to drink out of the bottle, because it was for the celebration of an event he was putting together. He was very serious, and stressed out. But he finally did it, and I feel like I "nailed it" with the picture. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 04:43
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Going out and doing it your own way, without that crutch of instructions, will help you much more in the long-term. The pants-making GBS threads is important, getting out of your comfort zone, not gradually extending it. I've been trying to do street photography for a while (month) now. And I got maybe one good image hiding behind my 55-250mm lens. A few days ago I saw a busker talking to a five year old and I asked to sit and take photos of it. It was indeed a rush and I hope I can do something similar again. The photos weren't, for the most part, great but (by my low standard they weren't terrible). Although I do disagree with you in part. Some basic understanding of what techniques and setting work best in certain environments can save a lot of time and frustration over the few things that can actually be learned through reading. XTimmy fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Jan 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 14:13
|
|
|
 Reichstag is right, go out and do it, you can read about it all you want but theres no substitute for going out and doing it, the "rules" will go out the window you first speak to someone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 16:38
|
|
|
fordan posted:As an employee taking pictures as part of his job, I'd assume the copyright would rest with his employer, making publicity rights/model releases the sticking point. Photographers should never give up their copyright, you're a contractor not an employee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Some basic understanding of what techniques and setting work best in certain environments can save a lot of time and frustration over the few things that can actually be learned through reading. This is almost 100% based on your locations, and your intentions, which aren't things you can read about (unless you happen to be taking pictures at a tourist location or something). By all means, prepare. Scout your locations, get to know the light, get a feel for the people there, think about the shots you want to make before you make them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Photographers should never give up their copyright, you're a contractor not an employee. Get an understanding in writing that you are being payed as a contractor. They may whine about accounting/taxes/you making this too difficult, but it's the right way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
psylent posted:I've wanted to do something like this for a while, but I'm lacking the balls. Calling dorkasaurus_rex to this thread, this is right up his alley.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 23:53
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Photographers should never give up their copyright, you're a contractor not an employee. I absolutely agree with that statement assuming you replace the comma with an if. If taking the photos are part of his job, then he's not a contractor and the photos are a "work made for hire." If it's for someone other than his employer, than he is a contractor. If the photography is incidental to his employment, it gets hazy and needs to be discussed as both sides have decent arguments for copyright ownership if no prior arrangement is made. At least from my understanding of US law. However, I am not a lawyer, and UK law may be different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 04:02
|
|
|
I'm gonna have a chat with the owners of the company when it all gets sorted out in a couple of weeks and I meet them. Chances are I'll probably be doing more shooting for their other companies too so I need to get this sorted soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 12:24
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Bingo. You were not initially hired as a "Photographer." But, if you are not specific about this they will do their best (in my experience) to claim it was part of expanded and willful job duties. Yeah, that is how mine has worked. I never bothered trying to get the copyright as all the stuff I'm shooting is going online for free educational use anyways, which is a dealbreaker for stock agencies AFAIK. Nice for fleshing out my portfolio and getting away from a computer screen (plus paid travel), and I bring my rangefinder along to shoot pictures for myself nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Going out and doing it your own way, without that crutch of instructions, will help you much more in the long-term. The pants-making GBS threads is important, getting out of your comfort zone, not gradually extending it. Reichstag- normally I think you're way too harsh on people but in this instance I totally agree. Spontaneity is only going to lead to good things in the long run- just get over yourself and start a conversation. There are a lot of characters waiting to be found if you just talk to people and make them comfortable with you. I missed shooting black and white and figured I'd try out RAW processing without color for once- it was pretty fun. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
I haven't shot anything for a long time, been just really busy with work and life in general, so I brought the lights out and did a quick self portrait. I've been really wanting to make use of the vagabond power pack I bought, but I just haven't had the opportunity. I like the idea above of just going to a street corner and making it happen, I think I'll plan on doing that this summer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
I don't know that this is really the right thread for this, but I need to vent somewhere. Huge group photos are a huge pain in the rear end. When that huge group is every sorority on campus, ten times so. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
Groups are the worst, there are so many problems and I've seen very, very, few that are interesting. The interesting ones have required DAYS of preparation that most groups simply don't understand/care about. So you did well enough, I'd say. e: and it's their own drat fault they didn't look at the camera after being told 6,000 times and taking several shots JAY ZERO SUM GAME fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jan 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:I don't know that this is really the right thread for this, but I need to vent somewhere. Huge group photos are a huge pain in the rear end. When that huge group is every sorority on campus, ten times so. Ugh. All I can think of is getting up on a really high ladder and using a T/S lens (or large format camera with movements) to move the focal plane to cover the sweep of the heads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 19:12
|
|
|
Why do 90% of sorority girls always do the pop a squat off to the side, hands on the knees move? I feel like there is some big secret I am missing out on- who told them that weird combo looks good?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 19:12
|
|
|
There was actually another photographer on the second floor behind me who did another round of shots to get more of them visible, but she kept messing with the exposure and most of them didn't come out so hot. And about that front row pose, I have no idea. I then had to do group shots of each sorority individually, and most of them did the same thing. There was a woman with me who was basically a handler, her sole job was to arrange them and get them all to shut the gently caress up for two seconds to let me take a photograph. That's still the best shot of like ten. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Why do 90% of sorority girls always do the pop a squat off to the side, hands on the knees move? I feel like there is some big secret I am missing out on- who told them that weird combo looks good? I think it probably makes a lot more sense when they're wearing a dress. It looks strange with pants though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 19:23
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Why do 90% of sorority girls always do the pop a squat off to the side, hands on the knees move? I feel like there is some big secret I am missing out on- who told them that weird combo looks good? Good eye, that's the "sorority squat" It's so that you can do a multi-level group photo easily without having chairs-- and yeah, it makes more sense with a dress. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 19:51
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:There was a woman with me who was basically a handler, her sole job was to arrange them and get them all to shut the gently caress up for two seconds to let me take a photograph. That's still the best shot of like ten. Ugh. If you think sorority girls are bad, try college football players 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:If you think sorority girls are bad, try college football players This was an "icebreaker" shot in the middle of about 10...getting them all to look at the door. I liked it, but can't use it, so didn't process it at all. But, I've found that with kids if I can get them all looking away, when I tell them to look back, I have a second when they are all going to be looking right at me. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:If you think sorority girls are bad, try college football players You need to bring along a healthy-chested woman to the shoot. Before:      Ta-da!  After: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 20:33
|
|
|
psylent posted:I've wanted to do something like this for a while, but I'm lacking the balls. jackpot fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Jan 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2010 00:15
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:All I can think of is getting up on a really high ladder and using a T/S lens (or large format camera with movements) to move the focal plane to cover the sweep of the heads. Thinking of how I'd shoot this on anything that didn't have movements gives me the screaming heebie jeebies. Then again, thinking of trying to get just the right shot of several hundred people on sheet film does that, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
I've got a gig for Metromix for today, taking pictures at a "Winter Wine & Ski Expo". They'll pay $75 for 30 pictures, which is not bad considering that I do photography as a hobby. I'm supposed to get shots of people in 2s or 3s, which I think will be easy enough to do. The guy who hired me gave me galleries like this one for inspiration: http://reno.metromix.com/music/photogallery/oakenfold-at-grand-sierra/1263867/content So all I'm doing is: - Ask people to take their picture - Compose for shot of them from waist - up - I have a 580EXII flash with a Lumiquest Diffuser. I'll take a couple with it on camera, but if not, I'll use a TTL cable to have it off camera, and on my left hand. - Get people's names, write them down along with the IMG# Also: I get in for free (instead of paying the $50 or whatever to get in), sounds like there'll be free food and hopefully I can find discounts or something for some of the ski resorts I like to hit up. Exciting stuff! I've only gotten paid for pictures once before, so I hope this goes well so I can do it again... and use the money to save up and spend on more photo gear 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2010 20:21
|
|