|
HPL posted:It's kind of weird for me with digital. I can shoot all day long on a film camera with just a 50mm or 28mm prime, but with digital I've got to bring two or three lenses along. It's not the camera, it's me. That's why I now only take one lens with me on day-to-day shooting. One day it's 35mm, one day 50, one day 105. Makes me think more about composition and saves a lot of weight.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2010 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
tuyop posted:That's a bit slow for a prime, isn't it? Eh, I was thinking I already have my 50mm f/1.8 for low light situations, and it's worked pretty well for me so far. The crop has actually helped a lot of times in situations I've been in. And this 28mm one, for what it is, is a lot cheaper than what I'd probably have to pay for a faster lens. I just want something nice I can have for every day use, mostly in areas where I'll probably have enough lighting anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2010 21:26
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Iīm the same. I had a shoot this afternoon and I spent longer setting up than I did taking photos. I think I took 20, and I could have stopped at 10. Itīs definitely a byproduct of having a strong vision going in, and being familiar with your tools. Adding a light meter also cut down on my shots since I donīt chimp anymore to get the lighting ratio right. Yeah pretty much, I take a lot of test shots tweaking lighting, someone steps in, shoot a dozen frames, and then move on. No varying exposure + knowing what you want going into it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2010 21:31
|
|
|
tuyop posted:
No. Most primes are f/2.8s in the canon line, anyway. The 50 and 85 are the two cheaper ones that are faster. After that, the default max aperture seems to be 2.8. The 14, 15, 20, 24, 28, 100, 135 and 200 are all available in f/2.8 as the cheap version. 35, 50 and 100 are 2/1.8/1.8 respectively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Yeah pretty much, I take a lot of test shots tweaking lighting, someone steps in, shoot a dozen frames, and then move on. No varying exposure + knowing what you want going into it. When this happens, how do you pull it off that it what it's supposed to be? People always are surprised when I'm done with them in 5-10 minutes of shooting. I always feel apologetic in some way, but I know when I got the shot I came for. Do you have anything special you say or is it just going to come with time kind of ignoring their responses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
"That'll be $600 your proofs are in the mail"
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:When this happens, how do you pull it off that it what it's supposed to be? People always are surprised when I'm done with them in 5-10 minutes of shooting. I always feel apologetic in some way, but I know when I got the shot I came for. Do you have anything special you say or is it just going to come with time kind of ignoring their responses. When I wrap up a shoot after 10 shots or so I'm thanked for being prepared and efficient with my client's time. There are a lot of people who can do background research, meetings, negotiations, testing, etc. and then great shots if you give them an hour; getting the same shots done in ten minutes is what's worth the money (your's and the client's). e: This is no longer "fun stuff" so farts
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:"That'll be $600 your proofs are in the mail" lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 01:06
|
|
|
But actually it depends on the shoot, if you are shooting for yourself then I don't think that would require any apology, sometimes its fun to talk with your model about what you're shooting for and why but for personal work there should be no obligation to spend any more time than it takes to get what you want. Generally for personal work I would use people I know anyway so I usually do additional glamour portraits or whatever just for fun afterwards. I don't do much commissioned work but in those instances I just talk to the model during the shoot as a way of making them comfortable with the camera (as well a way for me to get more comfortable with them) it helps too if they have a friend present that you can involve or even take photos of afterwards. I don't mind taking a few extra shots or using another roll of film if it means a happier model and/or better outcome for the shoot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:Don't apologize at all. Use that as an opportunity to show clients you respect the value of their time. This is a good point too. It's all about what your model expects really, if you are up front that it will only take a few minutes to shoot a set then they have no reason to be disappointed. This is especially the case if you work with your client beforehand laying out exactly what your process is and how you are going to carry out the actual shoot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 01:11
|
|
|
I find the vast majority of models and people are really relieved to be done so quickly, and often offer an anecdote about how a lot of other photographers take upwards of 8 hours/fill up 5+ cards. I've never seen anybody disappointed that I work fast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:When this happens, how do you pull it off that it what it's supposed to be? People always are surprised when I'm done with them in 5-10 minutes of shooting. I always feel apologetic in some way, but I know when I got the shot I came for. Do you have anything special you say or is it just going to come with time kind of ignoring their responses. I just see it as being prepared, the people I shoot aren't the clients so I don't want to waste their time, especially for editorial. I usually pre-light a shot with an assistant standing in and then bring the subject in when it's ready, get a few options, and then move on to the next shot. I would rather have more setups with less options than 50 slightly different poses for one or two. Usually people are grateful for not having to be in front of a camera for forever. If the client is on set we have already planned everything out and know what they need, so it's not like I'm going to apologize for arriving at a solution quickly. That's why they hire you. If you can shoot something in 5 minutes it's usually because you did most of the work before hand. If the client is there I usually ask if there is anything else we can do before tearing down the set and moving on though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMJ2mqUf16U#t=6m25s&fmt=22 That's some strong throwing arm..
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 08:15
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:
maybe it's just me, but your link doesn't go to the correct time. what the gently caress was that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 08:36
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:
It would have been okay with a UV filter on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 08:37
|
|
|
Try 6m25s, or click on this link instead. And yeah an UV filter could've totally saved the day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 08:58
|
|
|
I have no idea what's going on and I'm laughing my rear end off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 11:39
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:
That needs to be in the OP of the gear thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 13:14
|
|
|
Funny that it starts to fly apart before it even hits the wall. That's a canon for you though, can't take an angry Japanese father's expression of love. Poor Yoko.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 16:09
|
|
|
Needs to be resubbed about an argument that his cell phone has more megapixels than her camera and he can take pictures without poo poo like *throws camera*
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Needs to be resubbed about an argument that his cell phone has more megapixels than her camera and he can take pictures without poo poo like *throws camera* I've heard that one way too many times..... We must look so silly to people sometimes. Carrying around our big expensive cameras, while they have 12 megapixels right in their pocket.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 16:37
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Needs to be resubbed about an argument that his cell phone has more megapixels than her camera and he can take pictures without poo poo like *throws camera*
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
So I decided to investigate this Ken Rockwell thing. http://kenrockwell.com/tech/composition.htm gently caress YOU I HATE YOU KEN ROCKWELL. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 02:04
|
|
|
tuyop posted:So I decided to investigate this Ken Rockwell thing. That article is just proof that Ken Rockwell hangs around public bathrooms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 02:33
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:That article is just proof that Ken Rockwell hangs around public bathrooms. *thinks of SEX*  I guess you can kinda see that he is trying to compose each shot, but lovely subjects will still be lovely most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 02:48
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:*sees a public bathroom* Uh, where in his post did he say "Sex"? We both know that that's the implication, but you were the one who brought that up.  [e] Oh, you meant Ken Rockwell. Fair enough then. orange lime fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Apr 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Uh, where in his post did he say "Sex"? We both know that that's the implication, but you were the one who brought that up. Then KR Article posted:Composition:
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
Well he is trying to support his growing family. They currently only have one snuggie when they need 4. Or maybe 5 because his wife is fat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 11:40
|
|
|
When are people going to realize that a snuggie is just wearing a robe backwards?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 12:05
|
|
|
edit: It's jarring seeing that idiot's  face in threads here.
pwn fucked around with this message at 12:50 on Apr 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 12:35
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:*sees a public bathroom* Yes. Point well made.  Oh, and did anyone see the new camera commercial, I think for a panasonic point and shoot that was on the Big Bang Theory on Monday? Starts with eagle in nest...pan to man with tripod, taking telephoto lens out of bag to put on camera...couple walk into frame, say, "Hey, look at that!" pull P&S from pocket, take a quick shot (clearly on auto) look at the LCD and say, "That's a keeper!" as the bird flies away. Man with SLR holds lens, looks ashamed. But for the reaction I had of, "You fuckers, I sat here waiting for him to come back, you walk up and scare him away with your lovely POS camera and I'm going to kill you" it hits the right notes of convenience. Talks about the great 16x zoom. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Apr 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 13:29
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Talks about the great 16x zoom. That's another issue I've had before, aside from the whole "having more megapixels" thing. Having people ask me what x zoom my camera is, and telling me what there's is, and trying to compare them. I had one guy who was trying to show off his camera to me, saying it had a 16x zoom, and then he was like "watch this", as he zoomed in all the way, and then used his digital zoom to go in even more. "Your camera can't do that." He was an alright guy though. It's just another buzzword term thrown around that most people don't understand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
I shot my nephews baptism on Sunday, and when we all grouped up for a family shot, I had to give my camera to someone else to take it and I just knew it would be drama. I was shooting with my 50mm 1.8 and they just couldnt wrap their mind around the fact that it wouldnt zoom. After I explained that they couldnt zoom, and they would just have to back up, they snapped a half assed shot that cut two people in half, and called it good 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 17:23
|
|
|
DaJe posted:That's another issue I've had before, aside from the whole "having more megapixels" thing. Having people ask me what x zoom my camera is, and telling me what there's is, and trying to compare them. I had one guy who was trying to show off his camera to me, saying it had a 16x zoom, and then he was like "watch this", as he zoomed in all the way, and then used his digital zoom to go in even more. "Your camera can't do that." He was an alright guy though. It's just another buzzword term thrown around that most people don't understand. Sometimes I wonder if that type of person is being deliberately dense because they're jealous, or if they really can't see the difference between digital zoom and optical zoom. I think the "your camera can't do that" line points towards the first. I've taken some great shots with my old Powershot S400, but it was set on ISO 100 in bright sunlight, and the first thing I did was turn off the digital zoom. I can't wait for someone to say "your camera doesn't even have a FLASH?? poo poo, you can get disposable cameras with a flash!" It took me quite a while to figure out that all the photos on facebook that look like they were taken with car headlights in a cave are in fact on-camera flash photography in a club or something. It makes such a distinct style and nobody thinks to point out that it looks nothing like the actual scene. (Incidentally, going from an 8mm fisheye to a 200mm + 2x teleconverter, I would tell people that I have a 50x zoom and see what they say about that). orange lime fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Apr 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
If you have liveview you can do the double zoom in and be like, psh I can do that too. Or take a picture and zoom way in. I've gotten tired trying to explain that dSLRs dont use zoom by multiplication numbers (I know you can divide the high end of the focal length by the lowest end to get a rough approximation but people look at my 70-200 and say 3times zoom? MY FIVE YEAR OLD CAMERA CAN DO MORE THAN THAT) I just say 200 times if I'm using my 70-200, and they just respond, "oh... wow!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:If you have liveview you can do the double zoom in and be like, psh I can do that too. Or take a picture and zoom way in. I don't show off my gear, I would just nod and say "ah" and "hmm" if somebody was telling me how great there point and shoot was, but if they seriously went over the top, being a dick about it, I would just say "this camera cost more than your car".
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 22:08
|
|
|
DaJe posted:This 28mm f/2.8 doesn't seem bad at all http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-28mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LE71 especially not for the price on amazon listed for $270. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable price at all to me. That might just be the thing I need. Don't get that lens. Get a 35mm f/1.8 (for DX) or f/2 for FX. Or get the older AI-S version of the 28mm f/2.8 if you want that focal length. It's 1,000 times better than the AF version, except that you have to focus manually. It's also cheap on KEH.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Don't get that lens. Get a 35mm f/1.8 (for DX) or f/2 for FX. Or get the older AI-S version of the 28mm f/2.8 if you want that focal length. It's 1,000 times better than the AF version, except that you have to focus manually. It's also cheap on KEH. If going with a 28mm AIS I recommend the f/2. It rocks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 22:49
|
|
|
DaJe posted:That's another issue I've had before, aside from the whole "having more megapixels" thing. Having people ask me what x zoom my camera is, and telling me what there's is, and trying to compare them. I had one guy who was trying to show off his camera to me, saying it had a 16x zoom, and then he was like "watch this", as he zoomed in all the way, and then used his digital zoom to go in even more. "Your camera can't do that." He was an alright guy though. It's just another buzzword term thrown around that most people don't understand. Just start throwing around some numbers that probably mean nothing to him, but make DSLR's look far superior. "What ISO does your camera go up to? 1600? Psh, this thing will do 6400. My camera can record raw files with 14 bit depth? I bet yours only does 8bit JPEGs. How many frames per second can you take?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD_60_Efpy0#t=1m12s Can't imagine it's good for the naked eye at all. And judging from the audio, the person next to this guy was also affected. So be careful when you are shooting with your video-capable cameras!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 23:06
|
|