|
Paragon8 posted:Event photography is more about the coverage than the actual photography. People care more that there are pictures of them rather than good pictures of the event. Exactly. They want to see any and all shots of them goofing off with friends at parties, any possible shot of their kid at a sporting event, etc. We nitpick the poo poo out of the technical aspects of the photos but most little Johnny's parents could care less that the DOF isn't quite what you wanted or something, so long as they see little Jonny in there. It's not a good/bad thing one way or the other, it's just the nature of things.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
What's wrong with overshooting? Memory cards are cheap. I never really thought about it, but paragon8 is right. Event photography is more about coverage than it is about perfection. I feel that overshooting everything and everyone at least twice or more times with get me a decent amount of keepers. It does make post and culling pretty tedious, I must admit. On the other hand, what can he expect for free? I would be offended if someone asked for all of my shots from an event as well. You know, what about making a dummy flickr account? I have one for my family and friends photos that is separate from my main account.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
stizu posted:What's wrong with overshooting? Memory cards are cheap. I never really thought about it, but paragon8 is right. Event photography is more about coverage than it is about perfection. I feel that overshooting everything and everyone at least twice or more times with get me a decent amount of keepers. It does make post and culling pretty tedious, I must admit. The dummy account sounds like a good idea, but then I would have to export everything as lower size JPEG, and my computer just couldn't handle converting that many pictures, it would take forever  About the overshooting. I have no problem taking a lot of extra pictures. A break away in the hockey games is a good example, the D7000 absolutely dominates that, I can easily get 10-15 pictures if someone breaks away. The problem I have is uploading every single one of those pictures. People are not meant to see every picture taken during a sports game, that is why I go through and pick out the pictures I think are worth saving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
In principle there seems to be almost no reason not to overshoot for most applications, but in practice you can end up with a huge effort in post in actually making selects. Turning 1000 shots into 10 takes a much longer time than 200-300 into 10. You end up getting stuck in very similar pictures and it's tough to choose between however there's a chance you'll miss a great shot if you're not overshooting when you already have a good picture. You might have missed some things and your killer shot is slightly out of focus etc. It's a tough balance that you really need to figure out yourself and what you feel confident with. Events are good to overshoot for sure though, you just slap on a cool filter and upload to a big gallery and everyone's a happy duck
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
I overshoot like mad, a habit gained by spending a lot of time at car races. Fortunately Lightroom makes it as painless as possible, X and 1,2,3,4,5 are my favorite buttons in that program.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
Yeah, better to have too much than not enough
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
I overshoot as well if I can, then the first thing I do in LR is go through every photo and delete the ones that are blurry/out of focus/what the hell was I thinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 19:25
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I overshoot as well if I can, then the first thing I do in LR is go through every photo and delete the ones that are blurry/out of focus/what the hell was I thinking. If you can place a value on your sanity for culling images photo mechanic is a nice purchase. It renders images super fast so culling is a breeze.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Yeah, better to have too much than not enough Downside: The pesky client who notices how much you took, and asks where the rest are, even after pained efforts to explain to them they did not fit your standards of quality to give to the client.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:HoP: "*exasperated sigh*, just send me everything you took, I'll see what I can salvage." Send him 100 photos of you mashing your shutter open in bulb mode while wildly swinging it around for 20 seconds, then another 100 at 1/4000 f/22 pointed at the floor and see how many he can salvage. Here 'ya go, smart guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 21:54
|
|
Uh, no?"
|
William T. Hornaday posted:It mostly comes down to the fact that no one there (except me, apparently) understands photographic copyright, and I come across looking like a neurotic rear end in a top hat when I try to explain it to people and ask that they respect it. This is going to be trickier. They're not just using a product you own (saving money), they're stealing a product you own and selling it (making profit). I suggest you follow up on this, ask for compensation, and don't make your shots available anymore if they're going to be dicks about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
You need to for-serious stop sharing your pictures with your employer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
A lot of this crap seems to come down to the fact that there are a half-dozen volunteer photographers who periodically just hand over CDs of their photos to the curator in each department, and don't seem to give a poo poo about their copyright or whether anyone respects it. Somehow I've been lumped in with these morons (apparently for no other reason than I own a camera) and everyone assumes that I've also simply given the company free reign to use my stuff however they see fit. To be clear, I was credited for the works in question, but I can't see how that really changes anything. I've already removed any evidence of my photos from work; even cleared all evidence of them out of my personal account on the network. I'm planning on meeting with the director of HR in the next week or so, as well as the heads of any departments that played a role along the way in allowing this to happen. I'm very hesitant to ask for compensation (because I don't know the first thing about it and that's a little bit further down the bridge-burning rabbit hole than I'm willing to go), but I'm definitely going to make it incredibly clear to everyone that this is potentially lawsuit territory that they've incompetently stumbled into.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:A lot of this crap seems to come down to the fact that there are a half-dozen volunteer photographers who periodically just hand over CDs of their photos to the curator in each department, and don't seem to give a poo poo about their copyright or whether anyone respects it. Somehow I've been lumped in with these morons (apparently for no other reason than I own a camera) and everyone assumes that I've also simply given the company free reign to use my stuff however they see fit. To be clear, I was credited for the works in question, but I can't see how that really changes anything. 90% of people don't value photography unfortunately. If your hobby was baking it'd be like them expecting you to cater company events instead of a paid cater after you bring in a cake or two for a birthday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 01:51
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You need to for-serious stop sharing your pictures with your employer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Having walked around with point and shoots, DSLRs, film SLRs, and a TLR while taking pictures in public, I've found that the more eccentric your camera looks, the nicer people are to you (with my new TLR, a little old lady smiled and told me "ooh, I hope you're getting some good pictures!" Yeah, you are basically immune to photo-phobia if you've got something weird on you, my Speed Graphic is awesome for that. This winter break, maybe I'll get the new back swapped on to my Graflex SLR 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:Don't do this. Once the dust has settled on this, I'm still planning on sharing photos with my coworkers because I've got no beef with them on this issue. But hell if I'm going to let any of my photos leave the office without attaching some sort of form to each and every one of them specifically stating what use permissions I have granted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
My job role has nothing to do with photography at work, but part of is that I'm sort of expected/assumed to take photos at parties/whatevers. I had my company buy an "office" camera, a rebel with a kit lens and a 430ex II, that is always on site ready to be used. I scheduled a 30 minute meeting and instructed 2-3 other technically minded "photographers" how to use a DSLR, at least on auto or no-flash auto, and they even picked up Av mode! So I can take pics or hand it off to a few people and they can take some "awesome photos!" and everyones happy, even me. That way, I don't feel bad at all taking pics at company functions. Sometimes I might bring my 5d2 and L lenses for whatever reason, but then it's just for fun. And nobody bothers me about all the extra pics that I don't post. Here's the phrase I use when someone asks me where the rest of the pics are: "Yeah, those didn't come out. Taking pictures with these cameras is pretty hard. You see the big name guys just blazing away at a million frames a second? that's because most don't come out!" And if it comes to them demanding to see something, I show them a totally over exposed blurry shot of the floor or something that I happened to take. On a happier note, here's what my amazing girlfriend (goon korov) got me for our Anniversary / Christmas: 
milquetoast child fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Dec 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 09:26
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:Don't do this. One of my favorite types of advice is advice that has no argument backing it up. So you don't agree with what evil_bunny said, can you provide some sort of explanation so that the rest of us non mind readers know what's happening? The other thing getting to me lately is how the dorkroom talks about how rebels should be fine to start photography with, even a small business, but everyone also seems to blast rebels like they're total pieces of poo poo not worth a second thought in terms of professional photography. I seem really frustrated tonight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 10:16
|
|
|
Your camera selection really depends on three things: how much depth-of-field you want, how big you want to print, and how good an autofocus system you need. If you need full-frame depth of field, nothing but a 5d* or 1ds* will do (or a $20 EOS film camera and a $120 scanner, don't discount this for low-end bang-for-the-buck). If you need a big print, more modern is better because you get more megapickels. If you need better autofocus, more modern is better but so is a prosumer/pro camera instead of digital. If you just want something to develop your composition with and you will only be outputting JPGs or small prints, a Rebel will do fine.
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Dec 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 10:22
|
|
|
dunkman posted:Here's the phrase I use when someone asks me where the rest of the pics are: "Yeah, those didn't come out. Taking pictures with these cameras is pretty hard. You see the big name guys just blazing away at a million frames a second? that's because most don't come out!" And if it comes to them demanding to see something, I show them a totally over exposed blurry shot of the floor or something that I happened to take. Generally speaking I don't think most people get most of their pictures to turn out. If you're a pro, you just shoot more and your skills give you a slightly higher 'hit' rate, and that yields more keepers. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Dec 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 10:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Generally speaking I don't think most people get most of their pictures to turn out. If you're a pro, you just shoot more and your skills give you a slightly higher 'hit' rate. Oh yeah, it's total b.s. They don't understand that I might take 6 pictures in 3 seconds of the same couple, but in 4 of those pictures, the wife's eyes are closed/half closed and the husband looks drunk. So I only show the good 1 or 2. But they don't' get that part, they *think* they want all 6
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 10:32
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:It mostly comes down to the fact that no one there (except me, apparently) understands photographic copyright, and I come across looking like a neurotic rear end in a top hat when I try to explain it to people and ask that they respect it. I got invited to a gallery opening a couple of weekends ago and found out that an acquaintance of mine used about a dozen of my photos as business cards. The entire night people were complimenting his photography, but he is a painter and illustrator. The photos he used weren't even the repro shots I did of his work, they were random pictures sort of collaged together. It was loving surreal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 10:55
|
|
|
Basically, a shitload of his business has been based upon your publications. Sue your friend's rear end for actual and punitive damages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 10:58
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:One of my favorite types of advice is advice that has no argument backing it up. So you don't agree with what evil_bunny said, can you provide some sort of explanation so that the rest of us non mind readers know what's happening? Both those things are true. If you're good enough, you will be able to make photos from rebels look fantastic (note: I started on a rebel). If you're good enough, you will also hate how much the rebel series limits your work, so you will move on quickly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 11:02
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:The other thing getting to me lately is how the dorkroom talks about how rebels should be fine to start photography with, even a small business, but everyone also seems to blast rebels like they're total pieces of poo poo not worth a second thought in terms of professional photography. Simple. Stop listening to all the other forums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 11:33
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Both those things are true. If you're good enough, you will be able to make photos from rebels look fantastic (note: I started on a rebel). If you're good enough, you will also hate how much the rebel series limits your work, so you will move on quickly. I am a beginner photographer , could you elaborate on the limitation? I have not reached them but I am wondering what they are?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 12:27
|
|
|
I had to count to ten and close my reddit tab because of a lovely photography thread. This place is a haven but still has lovely elements but just glancing outside you can see how terrible the rest of the internet is for photography.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 12:31
|
|
|
Niagalack posted:I am a beginner photographer , could you elaborate on the limitation? I have not reached them but I am wondering what they are? It depends on the person really. But for me, low-light & ergonomics were 2 big factors. Also crop body in general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 12:38
|
|
|
For the ergonomics you can buy a battery grip. The body of my T2i is in plastic, I wish it was sturdier. My lens feel more heavier than the body which feels awkward. I wish I had a full frame sensor but the cost is ...
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 12:53
|
|
|
ERRBODY GET THIS EXTENSION! You can ignore timgs now, and saves browsing time. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nonjdcjchghhkdoolnlbekcfllmednbl
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 13:50
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:ERRBODY GET THIS EXTENSION! You can ignore timgs now, and saves browsing time. Done!!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 14:20
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Both those things are true. If you're good enough, you will be able to make photos from rebels look fantastic (note: I started on a rebel). If you're good enough, you will also hate how much the rebel series limits your work, so you will move on quickly. I 100% agree and know this so i'm not too sure what I was talking about last night. Note to self: Do not post after Christmas party...
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you need full-frame depth of field, nothing but a 5d* or 1ds* will do (or a $20 EOS film camera and a $120 scanner, don't discount this for low-end bang-for-the-buck). Just skip small format entirely and get a Bronica ETRS outfit for $300 on keh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
My mother in law gave me a 50/1.8 for christmas. She called it my "big present"  Tell you what though, after carry the 5D2 + Grip + Sigma 50/1.4 + a flash all day, the 50/1.8 is really welcome. Such a great gift!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:My mother in law gave me a 50/1.8 for christmas. She called it my "big present" Lucky you, my grandma still hands me a 20 and tells me not to spend it all in one place 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
 Yeah, but grandmas win like, 1000-2000 DAAAAAWWWW points pretty easily. :3
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:Tell you what though, after carry the 5D2 + Grip + Sigma 50/1.4 + a flash all day, the 50/1.8 is really welcome. Such a great gift!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I love that the most expensive camera canon/nikon makes topped with a cheap 50 is a perfectly good combo. It's surprisingly good, mine is dead on @ 1.8 and super sharp by 2/2.2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I love that the most expensive camera canon/nikon makes topped with a cheap 50 is a perfectly good combo. For Nikon DX cameras, the 35mm is the same. It is great on the cheapest DX bodies, and it is great on the expensive DX bodies. Kudos to Nikon for finally updating the 50mm to work on the cheaper bodies, they should have done that a long time ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 20:24
|
|