|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:Does anybody know how to recover lightroom catalogs? You're supposed to be able to open them right up and it will give the option to update. Is that not happening for you? What happens if you open LR, then try to open an existing catalog?
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Hmm that's odd, it's working now. It was saying the catalog was corrupted earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:Hmm that's odd, it's working now. It was saying the catalog was corrupted earlier. Probably just spite then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
One of my coworkers just told me about a wedding he was in this weekend. Apparently the photographers were using awesome analog gear to augment their DSLRs. Manual focus cameras, analog light meters, etc. Apparently it was taking forever to set up the formal shots and they didn't really seem to know what they were doing. After doing a whole roll of posed shots the photographer went to change the film and the whole roll unraveled on the ground. Apparently the photographer looked down awkwardly and proclaimed, "I think it's ok, because it was already exposed." My friend knew the reality but just kept his mouth shut because what the gently caress are you going to do in that position? I guess is the moral of the story is to learn a little something about film before you try to shoot a wedding with it. In much more horrible news, I went to Facebook message the bride for the wedding I'm shooting this weekend and found out her apartment complex burned down yesterday. To make things worse the only reason I'm shooting this wedding in the first place is that she got fired a month before her wedding and her original photographer was her former boss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 18:58
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that's the universe telling her to not get married. If I was the universe I would have just driven the groom off a cliff or something, but who am I to question cosmic justice?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
What the gently caress? If you're already using DSLRs there, just transfer the settings over to the film camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
Why even bother with film for a wedding? Just seems stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
Film has a nice look to it. There's nothing inherently dumb about using it for a wedding, especially if you're already using digital. It's just one more tool in the toolbox.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
Yeah, I know a dude in town who's shooting pretty much all 35 and 120 for everything but the ceremony, when he uses his 5D2's. Shooting weddings on film makes sense when you can automatically up charge a few grand for it :|
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
Hello fellow mac nerds: I used this guide to enable Fullscreening of Lightroom in 10.7. It loving owns bones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Why even bother with film for a wedding? Just seems stupid. Martytoof posted:Film has a nice look to it. There's nothing inherently dumb about using it for a wedding, especially if you're already using digital. It's just one more tool in the toolbox. Sorry Martytoof, I am with Haggins here: film is dumb for a wedding. It has copious technical disadvantages (inflexible, slow to load, only 36exp per load, no preview, no histogram, fixed speed, fixed white balance) as well as a huge commercial disadvantage in that you have to pay for each roll of film, plus developing costs (which all eats into your margins). Finally, you have to scan all the negs to be able to do anything useful with them. I do agree with you that film has a nice look. Fortunately, LR has lots of lovely free presets to get that same look at no extra cost: http://www.flickr.com/groups/presets/discuss/72157612664073371/ Personally, I really like the B&W presets from MikeyG! quote:MikeyG!s Black and White Film Presets Vol 1 by GrayImaging - Site: lifeindigitalfilm.com
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 08:54
|
|
|
All of those previews look like Deviantart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 09:00
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:All of those previews look like Deviantart. Haha, yeah, you are right - I just linked the first page with a handful of free presets on it and didn't look beyond the point where it had real B&W film presets. I see what you mean. I had a bunch of really good B&W presets that I have misplaced and I forget where I got them from. Maybe it was that MikeyG guy, or possibly from here: http://www.presetsheaven.com/2008/10/27/34-free-black-white-film-presets-for-lightroom/ I just loved that they had FP4 and HP5 and they seemed pretty accurate (as far as my memory is right) EDIT: This guy has Velvia and Kodachrome25: http://albertdebruijn.com/home/free-lightroom-presets/film-types EDIT2: I just checked, both those B&W presets are from the same guy. spog fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Jul 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 09:26
|
|
|
Film handles highlights more smoothly. It's usually one of the big giveaways if you're wondering if a photo was done on film or a digital B&W conversion. Digital highlights tend to have a harder threshold to them whereas film has more of a gradient. It's hard to describe. If you're Joe Blow customer, it won't make a bit of difference. It's one of those things where if you've been working with both film and digital side-by-side for a while, you get to notice certain things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
My only problem with film in general is that people think it just gives them a pass with being sloppy with certain elements and that they can coast by on the unique "film effect" For a wedding I'd certainly only be comfortable with it being used if it is seamless and professionally done. Not a half hearted effort to add another billable package.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
I try to shoot a roll of film at every portrait session and generally like those shots the best. However, I think two factors play into that: 1) It's the end of the shoot, so everyone is more relaxed and focused on making photos 2) I don't push the shutter till I'm sure I've got the shot I want. My keep rate is much higher. I honestly like my Elan more than my 50D in terms of the viewfinder, I wish its grip were a bit larger. I'm hoping that when I get a 5D some day I'll feel like it's the digital equivalent of the film camera I love.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
spog posted:Sorry Martytoof, I am with Haggins here: film is dumb for a wedding. Not to mention gently caress ups at the lab that are beyond your control. A good photo is a good photo regardless what medium it's shot on. If your photos don't look good without the "film look", you're doing something wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
http://video.pbs.org/video/1672209202/ President's photographer
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
My mom shoots exclusively with film on a camera she bought over 35 years ago because she refuses to move to digital (or get a new one for that matter) and she went around on our wedding day taking a lot of candids while the photographer did more formal shots (also, she's a biologist and so took a lot of photos of trees and things too, she wasn't in the photographer's way at all) and there really is a difference in the type of shot, but also the number of them. My mom had 3 rolls, whereas the photographer ended up giving us around 700 photos. And yeah, there was a fuckup at the lab and a lot of her photos ended up having a white line going through them because the idiot behind the counter didn't know what he was doing. The photos that worked were fantastic and went really well with the pro's formal shots. But it wasn't perfect, there was a screwup beyond her control and I'd rather have hundreds of digital shots over 90-odd film shots of my wedding if I had to choose, even if I love the look of film. That said, doing both was really good and I'm glad I have both.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
Well I mean I guess I never really meant to use only film in this, the year of our lord 2011, but if a photographer wants to bring a film camera and use it to supplement the digital shots then there's absolutely nothing dumb about that, which I assumed was the original intent of the comment I was replying to. Hell, when I get married I want someone to bring a 4x5 camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Not to mention gently caress ups at the lab that are beyond your control. That's why you use a god damned professional lab for your profession. e: V It would also be supremely cool and could become a family heirloom. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jul 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
Or you could go really old school and have some Italian or Dutch guy paint your wedding portrait. Sure it would take hours and hours of posing but it'll be worth a ton of money centuries after you're dead!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 02:09
|
|
|
All weddings used to be shot on film (on 120! with only 12 exposures! with a fixed, manual focus lens!). Horrifying, I know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
brad industry posted:All weddings used to be shot on film (on 120! with only 12 exposures! with a fixed, manual focus lens!). Man, think how much money it would cost to ship prints from the website back then!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
I accidentally took a photo of my dick on 120 film once. And I sat down, and I thought about it, and I thought about all the long exposures that were on that film, hours and hours of exposures. All the time I spent, all the effort, the slinking in the background, trying to read my book with a head torch on inside my jumper. Trying to dance around and warm myself up and not shake the camera. Then I took the roll out, exposed and then burned it. You can't do that on digital.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 03:30
|
|
|
You live a very strange and fantastic life, Helmacron. Please write a book about photography.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 03:59
|
|
is go
|
Helmacron posted:I accidentally took a photo of my dick on 120 film once. And I sat down, and I thought about it, and I thought about all the long exposures that were on that film, hours and hours of exposures. All the time I spent, all the effort, the slinking in the background, trying to read my book with a head torch on inside my jumper. Trying to dance around and warm myself up and not shake the camera. I'm guessing a double exposure wasn't an option?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:I'm guessing a double exposure wasn't an option? Two times zero is still nuffin'. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
Anti_Social posted:I'm guessing a double exposure wasn't an option? Sure, if you thought of that. Yeah, sure that would be an option. EDIT: I'm trying to work up the nerve to fork out for an X100. I'm on the eBay page and then suddenly I need to use the toilet. Or sweep. Or wash the dishes. I'm getting a lot of housework done because my internal miser is just going nuts. "No, you can't buy this camera what if the screw mount isn't located directly underneath the nodal point of the camera" "what if the remote shutter release jars it every time you use it, it's so small!" "what if it's covered in mercury when you open the box and gushes out into your eyes and mouth?" etcetera. And the later I wait to buy it, the more upset I will be with myself for not buying it earlier because the longer I'll have to wait for it to get here. You just can't help people like this, like me. I need a personal Herod to wash his hands and just flick water at me like your poo poo friend in high school. Helmacron fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Jul 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 06:28
|
|
|
If anyone ever has the bright idea to try to open up their Monfrotto joystick head with the intention of fixing it, just save yourself some time and put a gun to your head right then.  That's four hours of my life I won't get back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 07:10
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I accidentally took a photo of my dick on 120 film once. And I sat down, and I thought about it, and I thought about all the long exposures that were on that film, hours and hours of exposures. All the time I spent, all the effort, the slinking in the background, trying to read my book with a head torch on inside my jumper. Trying to dance around and warm myself up and not shake the camera. This is the right time to start learning how to develop color film in your own darkroom
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 09:46
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I accidentally took a photo of my dick on 120 film once. And I sat down, and I thought about it, and I thought about all the long exposures that were on that film, hours and hours of exposures. All the time I spent, all the effort, the slinking in the background, trying to read my book with a head torch on inside my jumper. Trying to dance around and warm myself up and not shake the camera. I'm still wondering how one "accidentally" takes a picture of ones dick. Did you mistake it for something else?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
Probably making love to a pinhole camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 15:00
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Please write a book about photography. This totally needs to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
spog posted:This guy has Velvia and Kodachrome25:
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
I was pretty stoked to find an older version of what has become the Manfrotto 055 series for $20 at a garage sale, but some dude on Fred Miranda found an FD 800mm F/5.6 for $5. I hope he likes birds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
Cross posting from Camera Gear Thread Meet Terry Richardson, The World’s Most F—ked Up Fashion Photographer http://jezebel.com/5494634/meet-terry-richardson-the-worlds-most-fked-up-fashion-photographer
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
dunkman posted:Cross posting from Camera Gear Thread I'd be surprised if most people in this forum did not know who Terry Richardson was. I knew he was a creep, but dang, that's even creepier than I had given him credit for (and the articles a year old to boot).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Not that I'm defending every Terry Richardson does, but this response to that article is funny: http://streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/blog/terry-richardson-raped-me-too/ (NSFW)
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
The problem is because of the power dynamic in place - i.e. agencies are probably sending really young and fresh models to him to shoot and he's a powerful and prominent figure in the industry. I imagine it'd be super hard for a young model to really say no in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2011 23:08
|
|