|
I find what's helped me lately is to not listen to all the advice of my photo friends, like when one of them told me reading books on photography is a waste of time, the only way I'll actually learn is by doing. Reading the few guides I've bought helped me immensely when it came to exposure and the technical stuff. I still suck at a lot of factors and take poo poo photos but I get to practice every day. I look back on my pictures from a year ago and can usually think of what would have helped. Also PAD is pretty cool, the critique I've gotten there has made me re-examine shots I've taken and what I could have done better next time.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
red19fire posted:Joe McNally's books are great to learn how to make due with what you've got, he gets the shot in incredible situations. Peter Hurley's DVD is the best just for seeing how he interacts with clients, he's actually frowned upon in the NYC 'headshot' industry for some of his stylistic choices. Frowned on by who? McNally is a craftsmen in the sense that he can paint a wall but he'll never do a Sistine Chapel. It's telling that his last campaign is a picture of him taking a picture. He sells to other photographer's really well because his work is attainable to people buying gear. He does have a respectable body of photojournalism work and his peak career was at a time when Life and NatGeo actually sent staff photographers all kinds of places with access. He's talented at getting to the right place and being competent enough to capture an image.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:As I've (arguably) gotten better, it's not that I take more good photos. It's that I take less bad ones. Like I look through the viewfinder and go "nope" and just don't press the shutter button. Been doing this a lot recently. Used to come home with 100 shots, delete 50 of them, only show other people 10. Recently it's more like 20/5/5.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:How does one get better at photography? I alternate between thinking my photos are good and that they're poo poo, and all the while nobody seems to comment either way when I post pics on facebook, where i basically look for adulation. Even tho it's been suggested I wouldn't suggest going to a photography club in your region... it will likely be people circle jerking about their gear and with close to no technical knowledge when it comes to photography. I would say post in PAD and critique people's work. At first you won't be able to critique much but if you keep reading people's critique you'll start having an eye for technical details that you might have missed in the past. And while some critiques might be harsh, they will teach you to accept criticisms and learn when to take it and when to just let it slide. Also, take pictures, but don't just snap and shoot... take them and afterwards try to self critique your work and your post processing. A good exercise can be to come back to your older work after awhile and critique it again. Finally, enjoy taking pictures... don't try too much don't do it to please people in here... do it for yourself and enjoy every step of your journey. Edit: Also learn about your gear... its strengths and its weaknesses. You'd be surprised how much this will help you to learn/adapt. Ah and learn about exposure. xenilk fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jul 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:I find what's helped me lately is to not listen to all the advice of my photo friends, like when one of them told me reading books on photography is a waste of time, the only way I'll actually learn is by doing. Reading books is always good. Especially, I would recommend that you read books of theory and criticism, not technical guides. A copy of Stephen Shore's The Nature of Photographs should be considered essential, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
This book http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Phot...ad+a+photograph also owns. It's got a small bio and a couple of pages of photos for a ton of influential photographers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
My longest lens is a Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6 kit lens (VR1). I would like to try some birding, would buying a $100 2x teleconverter essentially give me a 110-400mm? How disabling is using a teleconverter to the end image? I don't mind manual focusing, but will the use of a teleconverter on an already average lens make it crappy to such an extent that the whole enterprise isn't worth it? I don't really want to spend money on a nice long lens yet. Thanks in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
Teleconverting that lens with 2x would cut light transmission, losing two stops (?) and essentially give a horrendously small aperture, far too small be workable, likely killing any AF capability because of not enough light. I actually don't know if the 55-200 can be TCed. You can try it out without the TC, but you'll find (as I did) that the lens itself has a sluggish AF and outside of getting a 70/80-200 2.8 lens, you're gonna have a tough time hunting any fast-moving birds (crop crop crop). There's a reason birders are dropping the cash on 300 and 400mm primes, and it's not because they hate money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
Get a Nikon J1 or some other silly crop body and get an adapter to mount your lens. e: Chose the J1 just because the prices are so low. You would probably be better served overall with a good m43 body but the price and crop of the J1 might do you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Sigma also makes some beastly telephotos for around the 900-1500 AUD mark that'd be useful for birding if you're happy lugging an extra kilo around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:My longest lens is a Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6 kit lens (VR1). I would like to try some birding, would buying a $100 2x teleconverter essentially give me a 110-400mm? How disabling is using a teleconverter to the end image? I don't mind manual focusing, but will the use of a teleconverter on an already average lens make it crappy to such an extent that the whole enterprise isn't worth it? I don't really want to spend money on a nice long lens yet. Thanks in advance. Otherwise, save your money until you can drop $500 or so on something long - or double that and aim for one of those Sigmas XTimmy is talking about. And practice your tripod shooting in the meantime. A monster supertelephoto lens is a great thing to have and use - lots of fun. The expense is a bit daunting, but when you start getting bird shots that you're actually happy with it's worth it. Then, of course, you start lusting after more reach, bigger apertures, better handling (size, weight, focus-ability)... EDIT: Bonus teleconverter chat - teleconverters multiply the focal length of the lens by their teleconverter factor, so in the case of a 2x TC your lens would indeed be 110-400mm. Aperture values are focal length divided by the diameter of the light hole (fancy-pants refer to that light hole as the aperture diameter), and since you've just doubled the focal length you've halved the effective aperture, making your lens f/8-f/11. Hand-held shooting usually avoids motion blur from shaky hands if the shutter speed is roughly 1/focal length or faster. Acheiving 1/400s shutter speed at f/11 is going to require some combination of high ISO and bright ambient light - and that's when your lens is wide open. Most lenses are not at their sharpest until they've been stopped down a bit, and the situation at 1/400s f/16 or f/22 is really grim. Unless you really like shooting seagulls and other white birds on bright sunny days around mid-day. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Trey Ratcliff, who I happen to think is a huge HDR-using douchebag but is still a pro who takes much better photographs than me, wrote a big blog post about how he's dumping his D800 for a Sony NEX-7. Has the Dorkroom chimed in on this? Anyone using the NEX-6 or 7 currently? Sorry if this is the wrong thread but the Sony thread only has 2 pages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Syrinxx posted:Trey Ratcliff, who I happen to think is a huge HDR-using douchebag but is still a pro who takes much better photographs than me, wrote a big blog post about how he's dumping his D800 for a Sony NEX-7. Has the Dorkroom chimed in on this? Anyone using the NEX-6 or 7 currently? Sorry if this is the wrong thread but the Sony thread only has 2 pages. I've never seen your work but I'd say it's better than Trey Ratcliff. The only thing he's pro at is linkbait blog posting and social media marketing. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:My longest lens is a Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6 kit lens (VR1). I would like to try some birding, would buying a $100 2x teleconverter essentially give me a 110-400mm? How disabling is using a teleconverter to the end image? I don't mind manual focusing, but will the use of a teleconverter on an already average lens make it crappy to such an extent that the whole enterprise isn't worth it? I don't really want to spend money on a nice long lens yet. Thanks in advance. Add a teleconverter and be the envy of your friends with a 1200 f/16. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:My longest lens is a Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6 kit lens (VR1). I would like to try some birding, would buying a $100 2x teleconverter essentially give me a 110-400mm? How disabling is using a teleconverter to the end image? I don't mind manual focusing, but will the use of a teleconverter on an already average lens make it crappy to such an extent that the whole enterprise isn't worth it? I don't really want to spend money on a nice long lens yet. Thanks in advance. The 55-200 VR1 is a piece of poo poo. Sell it if you can and if you can't maybe just smash it to pieces and throw it in the garbage. The AF is painfully slow, the IQ is poor at 200mm, and the effect of VR1 is barely noticeable. Take the money you get from selling the lens and the $100 you were thinking about dropping on a teleconverter and put it towards buying yourself something better like the 70-300 or a decent sigma with some reach. rio posted:Get a Nikon J1 or some other silly crop body and get an adapter to mount your lens. The J1 with the FT-1 mount has pretty bad autofocus. With a telephoto attached it hunts a lot even under bright, sunny, high contrast conditions. You could bird with it but realize going in that you'll probably have to manual override the focus sometimes to help it out and that it'll probably be impossible to get shots of birds in flight without a lot of luck. One thing the J1 has going for it with regard to birding is it's 60 fps continuous shooting mode which could give you some cool shots of birds taking off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:My longest lens is a Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6 kit lens (VR1). I would like to try some birding, would buying a $100 2x teleconverter essentially give me a 110-400mm? How disabling is using a teleconverter to the end image? I don't mind manual focusing, but will the use of a teleconverter on an already average lens make it crappy to such an extent that the whole enterprise isn't worth it? I don't really want to spend money on a nice long lens yet. Thanks in advance. The Tamron 70-300 VC is also a good step up, selling your 55-200 and getting a used tamron wouldn't be a terribly big wallet hit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Syrinxx posted:Trey Ratcliff, who I happen to think is a huge HDR-using douchebag but is still a pro who takes much better photographs than me, wrote a big blog post about how he's dumping his D800 for a Sony NEX-7. Has the Dorkroom chimed in on this? Anyone using the NEX-6 or 7 currently? Sorry if this is the wrong thread but the Sony thread only has 2 pages. Those are some really bad photos, and some really bad web design.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Those are some really bad photos, and some really bad web design. The whole site seems an homage to krock. From the awful in your face font to the shameless marketeering "HOME OF THE AWARD WINNING FREE HDR TUTORIAL" right down to the review style that favors repetitive, aggressive remarks about subjective qualities over organized, factual review content.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Those are some really bad photos, and some really bad web design. His work is basically forgettable desktop wallpapers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Ahahahahahahaha he thinks apps on a camera is a good idea, and wants more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Ahhhhhh bad photos of his children! edit: removed Look at that vignette! He's out krocking krock! Dren fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jul 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
eugh, don't direct link his images. Someone as plugged into social media as he is will track back to this thread and be annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Frowned on by who? Basically it's other headshot photographers in NYC. Hurley's style is white backgrounds, Kino-Flo's and occasionally cropping at the crown, while the "NYC Headshot" style for years has been natural light black and white in front of a brick wall or a stoop. I agree that McNally recently mostly shills for gear on the workshop/RockStar Photography circuit, I think his books on his early work are great for getting the best result from a practical stance, as well as the importance of gelling strobes, knowing your gear, things like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
I would take whatever other photographers say about a successful individual in their field with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Howdy! I just returned from a 2 week family gathering in Italy with my 3 brothers, dad/mom and 2 uncles and families (20 people in total). Both myself and 2 of my brothers are quite fond of taking photos, so there were lots of pictures taken. Instead of every family taking their own pictures, we decided that we were primarily going to use just a few cameras, and rather share the pictures online once everyone has gotten back from the vacation. What is the best way of doing this? We discussed DropBox at first, i am not very familiar with it but that will just display a list of files right? Id say most of the participants at the gathering are at a PC proficiency level where DropBox would be a cumbersome solution, if not even scaring people away from grabbing the photos entirely. Is there a solution somewhere that lets us upload pictures to an "online album" of sorts, where we also have some control over who gets access to the pictures? And also allowing more than 1 person to upload to said solution?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:His work is basically forgettable desktop wallpapers. They're not all that bad. I've seen far worse HDR stuff than what he's got in his portfolio.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:Howdy! Make a flickr account and share the username/password between the people who are uploading to it? Or if everyone has their own flickr account you should be able to make a group that you can control access to, and then everyone can just submit pictures to that group.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:Howdy! Dropbox has a thing called "camera upload" where, when it senses that a SD card full of pictures has been inserted into your computer, it will automatically upload all of them to a "Camera Uploads" folder. As a bonus, Dropbox hands out a bunch of free space when you enable that feature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:They're not all that bad. I've seen far worse HDR stuff than what he's got in his portfolio. Those people aren't necessarily charging 5500 dollars for workshops or have arguably the largest social presence of any photographer on the internet. Or have a page full of amazon referral links to his "favorite things" like xboxes and dyson fans. The dude is a salesman. If you call yourself #1 at something, you open yourself up to criticism. Also he referred to a camera as a "little asian number" which is just... I don't know but I don't like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Those people aren't necessarily charging 5500 dollars for workshops or have arguably the largest social presence of any photographer on the internet. Ok, well I was only commenting on the <10 photographs I saw, not the fact that the guy is probably a colossal douche.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
Syrinxx posted:Trey Ratcliff, who I happen to think is a huge HDR-using douchebag but is still a pro who takes much better photographs than me, wrote a big blog post about how he's dumping his D800 for a Sony NEX-7. Has the Dorkroom chimed in on this? Anyone using the NEX-6 or 7 currently? Sorry if this is the wrong thread but the Sony thread only has 2 pages. That guys website, writing, and photography are incredibly grating, but I'm actually in a similar position. I got an NEX-3 when they first came out a few years ago and was not expecting to like it as much as I had. At the time, I was shooting with a 35mm Bessa for casual stuff, and a 5D (mark 1) for the occasional paid gig or more "serious" stuff. The Bessa basically went by the wayside as soon as I got the Sony, as it filled the gap for a portable (didn't have to be pocketable) camera with good IQ and decent manual controls. I started out using adapter rangefinder lenses from the Bessa on the NEX (plus the cheap 16mm for wideangle, I had no WA's on my Bessa anyways), but have gradually started using more Sony lenses, picked up the 35mm f/1.8 a couple months ago. I'm still less than happy with the selection of native-mount lenses for the NEX, and even though it's my "main" camera now (after flirting with large format for a while I've settled on a Hasselblad kit for the more serious stuff) I haven't mustered up the commitment to get an NEX-7. Seems like Sony's in it for the long haul with their mirrorless and an interchangeable FF E-mount camera will probably be out in a year or two, but Fuji's lens selection is mighty tempting. If the successor to the XE1 has an articulating LCD like the new entry-level X-mount, I may very well ditch Sony. But anyways, why the NEX works for me: I don't feel like IQ (dynamic range, mostly) is as good as my OG 5D, but it's still "good enough". After all, it's the same sensor that goes into Nikon and Sony APS-C DSLR's. Autofocus could be better (then again, I have a first gen NEX), but it's not terrible and I seldom shoot sports/action. Focus peaking rules. Mostly though, it's the portability: I get something far more discreet (no longer "that guy" who brought a DSLR at a social outing) and easy to bring around with me, that puts out really nice images. Having an articulating LCD is also a huge plus, lets you get lots of shots at tough angles I'd otherwise be praying-and-spraying at if I had to look through a viewfinder. For example, a ground-level shot of this fearless crab a few weekends ago:  Basically, I fell in love with the flexibility (mount anything on an adapter, lots more creative compositions possible with articulating LCD) and portability. The drawbacks (not as great IQ as a full frame DSLR, autofocus) really don't matter that much to me, and I supplement it with my Hassie. I'm still having a really hard time letting go of my 5D kit even though I can pretty much count on one hand the number of times I've used it in the last 3 years or so, but it'll probably happen this summer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Sometimes I just don't think the shot is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 07:12
|
|
|
Syrinxx posted:Trey Ratcliff, who I happen to think is a huge HDR-using douchebag but is still a pro who takes much better photographs than me, wrote a big blog post about how he's dumping his D800 for a Sony NEX-7. Has the Dorkroom chimed in on this? Anyone using the NEX-6 or 7 currently? Sorry if this is the wrong thread but the Sony thread only has 2 pages.  Buy the Nex minions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:Sometimes I just don't think the shot is worth it. You don't need to *be* a crazy, awesome, out-there photographer, you just have to know one and follow them around at a safe distance. Speaking of which: Helmacron, where are you at these days? "Safe distance" being a relative term; invest in some telephoto lenses. East Lake posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
East Lake posted:
I dunno who this guy is but he looks like a massive tool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Make a flickr account and share the username/password between the people who are uploading to it? Thanks! Does flickr allow me to make pictures only viewable by people that i share them with? And do they need a flickr account for that? Having to make an account on a webpage could be more than several of the participants at the gathering is interested in. Several of the participants are in their high 60s, and have never used computers much, and everyone is living all across the country so its not just a matter of dropping by one evening to show them how to do it. It needs to be as easy as possible for them to view and/or download the photos they want, while having the photos not viewable by the public. I hope i am not asking for a type of service/webpage that doesn't exist, but i realise i might have a bit too many requirements.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:Thanks! Your requirement that they not even have to register on a simple website (one that you can register with by clicking a big blue Facebook button, no less) is pretty harsh. Things like this don't just work for people that aren't hooked into technology, so I'm afraid you're going to end up doing the majority of the legwork here. If I were you I'd buy cheap rear end 8gb flash drives, send them to the people and have them load it up and send it back. That's the low tech route. Most old people get the thumb drive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
you could do a smugmug gallery with an unlisted link so you can just give them a URL. It's not a password login but only people with the URL should be able to get there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not sure there are any sites wehre you can not having the photos visible to the public without also blocking out all the people who don't have accounts (since they're well, the public). I know google drive will let you share with specific people, but even then you're still requiring them to have an account (just a google account in this case). The flash drive route might be a better compromise to the people who can't make an account for whatever reason. e. the smugmug link is a pretty good compromise too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
Google+ allows you to make an unlisted public album that can only be reached via a link that you can distribute, if I recall correctly. And uploading pictures to a G+ account is easy as well, as long as you can get people to install Picasa.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 17:14
|
|