|
ZoCrowes posted:That's exactly what I said. Where are you disagreeing with me? The field of view (what the camera "sees" as I originally put it) changes but the focal length does not. Not quite. You said ZoCrowes posted:35mm is 35mm though. The focal length is not changing from crop body to full-frame. Just what the camera is able to "see" along that focal legth. If you are referring to 35mm the focal length, we're in agreement. If you meant, as had been used earlier in the conversation, 35mm as a film size, it's starkly different. If you were using 35mm as a focal length, then while we agree, I'd suggest you use a different focal length to make the point, given its confusion with the film/sensor size. Your use of "crop body to full-frame" made me think you meant 35mm as sensor size, though. edit: I raise this because so many people do the "equivalency" thing, with 35mm film as the "base" field of view. It's a great shortcut for people who know how it works, but it's really misleading to the new folks in photography. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Mar 11, 2010 |
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
torgeaux posted:Not quite. You said You agree with him. This whole debate started when orange lime pulled ZoCrowes' post about getting a 35-70mm f2.8 lens and saying he didn't shoot wider than 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 17:41
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:You agree with him. This whole debate started when orange lime pulled ZoCrowes' post about getting a 35-70mm f2.8 lens and saying he didn't shoot wider than 35mm. Ah...In that case, nevermind. Carry on with your day to day activities please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 18:17
|
|
|
To continue the "Photo stores around me are awful" saga, I called a different store and asked the owner "Do you have a 52mm-77mm step up ring?" His response: "Oh you'll have to have 52mm special made, 55mm is the standard."
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 18:28
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:To continue the "Photo stores around me are awful" saga, I called a different store and asked the owner "Do you have a 52mm-77mm step up ring?" His response: "Oh you'll have to have 52mm special made, 55mm is the standard." hahaha I really want to like mine (they're pretty good for buying bags) but they have a pretty dismal selection of film related stuff and kind of treat me like a leper for asking about it :-\
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 19:03
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:To continue the "Photo stores around me are awful" saga, I called a different store and asked the owner "Do you have a 52mm-77mm step up ring?" His response: "Oh you'll have to have 52mm special made, 55mm is the standard." Yesterday I went to a store that I just found out about. They wanted $186 for a fairly OLD & USED Vivitar 283 flash and then argued with me about it being safe to use on my 50D. Depending on when the flash was made they can have a trigger voltage of 9V to 600V!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 19:19
|
|
|
The store near me is kind of weird because it's a mall store and it's small but they can bring in just about anything and their prices aren't fantastic by online standards, but they're not stupidly stupid either so it works out if I want just a small item or something in a hurry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 19:42
|
|
|
Brad, I think you should go MF. Given that 1) you prefer to shoot in-studio, 2) you now have studio space, and 3) you prefer to shoot tethered, you negate basically every downside people see with digital mf cameras. You'll be getting higher quality images, and you'll be able to use some fantastic glass. As I see it, the only reason for you to go with a 'normal' dslr is versatility, which you will still have if you keep your 1d as a backup. On another note, I'm worried about my local photo lab. I was talking with the owner the other day, and he doesn't know if he'll even be able to make rent this month, for the first time in maybe 20 years. All of his machines and stuff are pretty run down, some barely work, and the quality of developing I get is hit and miss, but they're the only game in town for film, and the owner and I have become friends. Most of the time when I come in he'll just have me go in the back and run my stuff through the developer myself. Over time it's become obvious that he doesn't really know much about photography, or even cameras. I've often wondered how he stays in business, since they only get a couple of rolls a week for processing, and it seems like half their wedding clients never come to pick up and pay for their prints. I guess he's just been able to do enough odd photo work over the years (passports, family portraits, etc.) that is now being done by amateurs with xti's. If he ever does go under, I'd be without a place to do 120 locally. I already have to take my E-6 and 4x5 to another city to get done. I'd seriously consider buying as much of his hardware as I can, but I have nowhere to store/use it, and nowhere near enough money to run it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Yesterday I went to a store that I just found out about. They wanted $186 for a fairly OLD & USED Vivitar 283 flash and then argued with me about it being safe to use on my 50D. Depending on when the flash was made they can have a trigger voltage of 9V to 600V!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:That seems a bit high, 1990 Vivitars supposedly have up to 300V trigger (continuous) voltage. From what I read it depends on where and when they were made.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Brad, I think you should go MF. Given that 1) you prefer to shoot in-studio, 2) you now have studio space, and 3) you prefer to shoot tethered, you negate basically every downside people see with digital mf cameras. You'll be getting higher quality images, and you'll be able to use some fantastic glass. As I see it, the only reason for you to go with a 'normal' dslr is versatility, which you will still have if you keep your 1d as a backup. Yeah it makes sense, my major concern is that I shoot a lot of editorial and video is going to be a non-optional part of that very soon (and I don't exactly foresee rates going up to rent the equipment either  ). But actually trading in the 5D for a 7D makes sense so thanks AIIAZNSK8ER for that suggestion, that might be the way to go.The other big advantage of getting the back is I can wayyyy up my digitech rates and offer the MF setup as part of a package so it will pay for itself eventually. So yeah hopefully I can make that upgrade this year. I miss shooting with the Hasselblad...
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
The only question that I would have about buying an older MF back is that you're going to take a real hit in usability/speed in terms of the processor, etc-- when I interned at a studio that was often the major factor that kept the MF gear shelved for the DSLR. Obviously if you've got experience with it (which I'm assuming) and it's not a problem, then it's not a problem. But still something to think about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:The only question that I would have about buying an older MF back is that you're going to take a real hit in usability/speed in terms of the processor, etc-- when I interned at a studio that was often the major factor that kept the MF gear shelved for the DSLR. Obviously if you've got experience with it (which I'm assuming) and it's not a problem, then it's not a problem. But still something to think about. Are you saying that older MF backs take longer to process a DSLR so you can't take shoot in a continuous mode?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Are you saying that older MF backs take longer to process a DSLR so you can't take shoot in a continuous mode? The point being that while the image quality out of an older MF back is still current, the software and computer hardware is outdated from a usability standpoint, which could be frustrating. But like I said, I'm going to assume that it's not really an issue for Brad given that he handles this gear regularly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 22:22
|
|
|
An H25 is the same file size as a 5Dmk2 so I'm not worried about that. The backs I'm looking at aren't ancient or anything, my workflow wouldn't change (I would continue using Capture One). One of the advantages of buying a back over a camera is there are no moving parts in a back (shutter is in the lens obviously on a Hassy) so there's no mechanical wear issue like there is with buying older DSLRs. You can't shoot burst or continuous because the file has to transfer, but the transfer time = about as fast as you can crank the advance on a 500c/m anyways. I don't really shoot fast or a lot of frames which is why I prefer MF anyways, it's a little more deliberate process than a 35mm camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
What is behind the move toward video for editorial work? Do they want a short making of type video, or do they want the video footage to be a continuation of your still images?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
It's just about the move to digital distribution and away from print. There are more possibilities for content beyond picture+words. Look at what Wired is doing with their iPad application, that is the future of editorial. I just saw this this morning, another example of how editorial contributors are going to be making more content as companions for digital: http://www.rachelhulin.com/blog/2010/03/go-shop-with-jennifer.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
Well that's all sorts of terrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 23:08
|
|
|
So I'm doing my first amapro kinda gig tonight. Photographing a wrestling event, TFJPG. Anyone have any kinda of smallish TFP contract or know of a good place to find one? edit : oops wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
brad industry posted:It's just about the move to digital distribution and away from print. There are more possibilities for content beyond picture+words. Look at what Wired is doing with their iPad application, that is the future of editorial. Gerard Butler looks really angry to be in those pictures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 00:23
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Well that's all sorts of terrible. Yeah I dunno how I feel about that specific example, but anything that moves focus from advertiser-centric content and more to the actual readers is good by me and is what magazines need. I can easily see a future where you flip through a fashion editorial on an iPad (or whatever form digital magazines take), tap a model to see an image like that with what she's wearing, and then a link to buy that stuff (and the magazine turns it into a revenue source by taking a cut or something). Anything that puts the focus back on the readers and not on turning publications into safe spaces for advertisers to make media buys is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 01:49
|
|
|
I don't really know which thread to post this in, so I picked this one! This was my first non party studio-esque shoot. We just set up a couple lights in my living room, and went to town. My friend was selling some vintage clothing, and wanted the clothes to be taken on a size-0 model. Then my cat got in on the situation. Some serious problems, shadows, the fact we're using a living room wall, yellow carpet and there's a giant gas outlet knob thing on the wall. We're going to put in some seamless white paper in the future, but this was really just a fun test run for me.    http://photos.dunxphoto.com/Fashion/Model-One/
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 05:05
|
|
|
Ya I'm in the same category as you. I had the privilege of shooting some little person wrestling tonight. My first official "photographer" job. This is my favorite shot of the night :  edit: gently caress it, here are a few more :      
ease fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Mar 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 06:52
|
|
|
I thought my last assignment that let me shoot with a constant beer buzz was the best I could ever achieve in terms of fun. You have proven me wrong.  That seriously looks fun as hell to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2010 07:47
|
|
|
So, a colleague at work has a jazz ensemble. Wanted me to come to their practice to do some shots for them. Great, I enjoy the opportunity to practice myself. "Don't worry about lighting, there's stage lighting there so it's fine." Yeah, I know better. I took AB800, a Sigma 530DG Super, couple of umbrellas and stands. "Meet us at 7:30, just google where the place is." Sure. Easy, except that there's no parking, but I got there a bit early, and after searching for parking, I'm on time. I set up, tell them to just keep practicing, I'll shoot around a bit before we do anything more formal. Fiddle, mess with the trigger, which is screwing up, test some exposures to see how I'm going to set up my second light. At 7:50, I ask how much time they have for the pictures, they say, "We have to be out at 8." I just can't WAIT for these beautiful, well staged shots. gently caress me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2010 02:13
|
|
|
dunkman posted:That was freaky as hell. My mind saw the "ster" in "Hipster" and "cum" in "Scum" and translated it to "Die Cum Dumpster". 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
Judge Joe Brown goes off on a lovely wedding photographer http://bit.ly/99QMO9 WHAT HELL FSTOP DID YOU USE? HOW CAN YOU BE A PROFESSIONAL WITH A KIT LENS?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2010 23:31
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Judge Joe Brown goes off on a lovely wedding photographer http://bit.ly/99QMO9 That was amazing. Even my girlfriend said "What the hell, who uses a Rebel with the kit lens and calls themselves a professional wedding photographer"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 00:12
|
|
|
DRP Solved! posted:That was amazing. Even my girlfriend said "What the hell, who uses a Rebel with the kit lens and calls themselves a professional wedding photographer"? In all fairness I've seen some fantastic wedding photography taken with a rebel and a 50mm f1.8. Certainly not the photographers in that video though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 00:50
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Judge Joe Brown goes off on a lovely wedding photographer http://bit.ly/99QMO9  - What f stop did you use? -We used a tripod(I know that judges aren't cops, but I thought that might be the most appropriate representation given the choices)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
So I think I need to start carrying a step ladder with me or get platform shoes because I am just too short. I'm at 5'4" and the people I photograph who are taller than me I catch a weird lower angle. I'm not quite eye level, when I happen to get to a taller vantage, I think the photo comes out better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 03:53
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:So I think I need to start carrying a step ladder with me or get platform shoes because I am just too short. I'm at 5'4" and the people I photograph who are taller than me I catch a weird lower angle. I'm not quite eye level, when I happen to get to a taller vantage, I think the photo comes out better. Get a TLR and hoist it over your head.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
Funny, my TLR helps me avoid the opposite problem. In a similar vein, I need to get a tripod that goes higher up. I almost never use a tripod, but now that I'm shooting 4x5, I can't really do without it, and I can't get it up to eye level with my subjects!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 04:01
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:So I think I need to start carrying a step ladder with me or get platform shoes because I am just too short. I'm at 5'4" and the people I photograph who are taller than me I catch a weird lower angle. I'm not quite eye level, when I happen to get to a taller vantage, I think the photo comes out better. I carry a little stool with me just for this, I'm 5'1". It comes in handy anyways, usually the makeup and stylist people are pretty short too (in comparison to models anyways), and they can use it too!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 04:04
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:In a similar vein, I need to get a tripod that goes higher up. I almost never use a tripod, but now that I'm shooting 4x5, I can't really do without it, and I can't get it up to eye level with my subjects! It's handy, I had mine all the way up to shoot over a fence and it was really nice looking into the ground glass with the camera pointed up at a 45 degree angle over my head. I bought the tripod off Craigslist last year and when I met the guy it turned out he was pushing about 5'2". He said it was a great tripod but all the extra height was wasted on him 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 04:14
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:So I think I need to start carrying a step ladder with me or get platform shoes because I am just too short. I'm at 5'4" and the people I photograph who are taller than me I catch a weird lower angle. I'm not quite eye level, when I happen to get to a taller vantage, I think the photo comes out better. look at the bright side, you have a distinct advantage in the little people-wrestling-photography market
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 04:20
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:So I think I need to start carrying a step ladder with me or get platform shoes because I am just too short. I'm at 5'4" and the people I photograph who are taller than me I catch a weird lower angle. I'm not quite eye level, when I happen to get to a taller vantage, I think the photo comes out better. This is why I buy Pelican cases, so I can stand on them and not have to bring apple boxes to location. I do work for a few short photographers who bring little fold up ladders though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:So I think I need to start carrying a step ladder with me or get platform shoes because I am just too short. I'm at 5'4" and the people I photograph who are taller than me I catch a weird lower angle. I'm not quite eye level, when I happen to get to a taller vantage, I think the photo comes out better. Could be worse. I'm 6'6" and a ton of the big athletes I shoot wind up looking like 7th graders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 16:43
|
|
|
I'm 6'8" and most of my pictures are taken at events at work. My posture was bad enough in the first place, I will be a hunchback in a year at this rate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
I'm only 6'4". 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 16:59
|
|