|
Due to a combination of never working with colour all that much from tight deadlines and a preference for black and white, I feel like I've just done magic: Original:  After:  I'm forcing myself to re-do my entire portfolio and have updated my website after a year or so of inactivity, so it's a good excuse to go through all the old junk and find else what else I just passed off originally because it either looked like a blown out piece of crap or put in the "too hard" basket to never be looked at again. So far (plus some old favourites):         Just so I'm not talking to myself in this thread, I'm updating the website here - http://feedback-photography.com/ - with a bunch of new stuff over the next week or so, if all goes to plan.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
Fixing red lights is ridiculously hard since sensors tend to not deal with reds well. Nicely done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
I usually shoot concerts at -1/3 EV. That way you'll still have information to pull out of oversaturated highlights like with red lighting or LED stage lights. Normally the lights are changing so much that it's not a noticeable difference as far as the photo goes, but you'll have that elbow room to work with if needed. DxO Optics pretty much saved me when venues started switching to LED lights because there's a slider that fixes oversaturation and the chunkiness that comes with it in the highlights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
HPL posted:I usually shoot concerts at -1/3 EV. That way you'll still have information to pull out of oversaturated highlights like with red lighting or LED stage lights. Normally the lights are changing so much that it's not a noticeable difference as far as the photo goes, but you'll have that elbow room to work with if needed. DxO Optics pretty much saved me when venues started switching to LED lights because there's a slider that fixes oversaturation and the chunkiness that comes with it in the highlights. I really should look into DxO Optics at some point - I've just been using Lightroom for however long it's been now just mainly for the speed of workflow. Anyone got any tips for a better sharpening method than just eyeballing it with the sharpen slider as well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:I really should look into DxO Optics at some point - I've just been using Lightroom for however long it's been now just mainly for the speed of workflow. Smart Sharpen in Photoshop works surprisingly well
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Took the x100t out a week ago to see Daniel Lanois. Testing out the efficacy of the spot meter and low-light AF on it to see if I'll be able to use it for shows at some of the venues around town so I can leave the DSLR at home now and then.     I think it's going to work out alright. Fixed lens being the biggest thing to have to work with. The leaf shutter is definitely a great great thing for shows. MMD3 fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Mar 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
    Fooling around with different stuff for post. DxOMark seems to do generally good defaults for a lot of its adjustments, but its interface is god-awful and it seems like it's easier to just do everything in Lightroom, even if I have to fool around more to get what I want. Adjustment brushes are a godsend for killing LED light washes in the corners. Not as good as AfterShot/Bibble's stuff was before Corel hosed it up, but it's enough. Also killing myself for not shooting at a tad quicker shutter speed, as there's some motion blur in faces and for once the lights were bright/good enough that I could have brought stuff up in post. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
 Prelude by TomOlson, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Man, video people are the worst.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
HPL posted:Man, video people are the worst.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
HPL posted:Man, video people are the worst.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
HPL posted:Man, video people are the worst. not emptyquoting but as someone who's done video this is accurate I've never done poo poo like use a monopod to get in someone's face, though. Those guys are the worst of the worst.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
That's not even a monopod, it's a glidecam style thing.. which just seems even more of an assy thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
HPL posted:Man, video people are the worst. I hope that guy was either with the band or at least got permission for poo poo like that. Just out of curiosity: how does everyone else work around crowds/bands/other photogs, especially in smaller venues where there typically isn't any sort of photo/film policy in place? Usually with the music genres I tend to cover I know quite a few of the people who will be covering as well and I know how to work around them. And usually if I see anyone with a camera who looks like they'll be sticking around for a while I'll go talk to them. But probably my biggest thing is to stay out of the way of the fans. Which is a where a zoom lens can really come in handy. As far as bands go as long as I stay out of their way they're usually happy with people taking pics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
ReverendHammer posted:I hope that guy was either with the band or at least got permission for poo poo like that. I usually figure video people are with the band/venue/some publication that's in contact with the band, because doing good concert video is (I assume) a lot of work and not something you're going to do just for fun. Staying out of the way of the crowd/other photographers isn't hard with normal primes if you have situational awareness (which you develop pretty quickly) and aren't staying in one place for the entire show so long as the venue isn't extremely crowded. The best places to take photos are usually off to the sides anyway, or if you are in front, crouched (figuring most venues without a pit don't have really stages). Fans I'll do a quick shoulder tap/ask to trade places for a second and most people are fine doing so. Other photographers will probably move somewhere else on their own if they can. For really crowded shows I don't bother trying, though I've never been on assignment for anyone where there'd be a need to. Content edit: I was amused by someone having an ME Super with an official SXSW tag (not in frame but trust me it's there):  At 6 days in I'm up to something like 7000 photos. Many sleepless nights doing review/post await. In the meantime, relatively decent unedited JPEGs!  
Qtotonibudinibudet fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Mar 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
Man, I miss SXSW. Semi-related story - four years ago was my first, and right around this time I was trying every avenue possible to get from Austin to NYC and catch LCD Soundsystem's final show at Madison Square Garden. Due to visas and the massive cost of changing flights and work, I didn't end up making it. I've got the concert blu ray sitting on my TV now as I've been cleaning, and they're just one of those bands that I've been listening to for as long as I can remember. The one time I did shoot them I remember being pissed off because I hardly got any good photos due to James Murphy's relatively static movement in the parts with good lighting, and erraticness during the strobes, and the combination of that along with me basically dancing in the photo pit just made it almost impossible, but I got at least one decent photo that I've always loved:  gently caress, I really miss LCD Soundsystem 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
James Murphy really is a boring performer. The Madison Square blu-ray is great but only because of the sheer craziness that is happening on stage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Love me some LCD Soundsystem. This is my one James Murphy photo, never did get a chance to see them perform though 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Reporting in with some lovely pics! Foursquare is a cool band. I saw them over a year ago when I offered to take photos of my then current coworkers who performed the same night. They played a funked-up version of the Goosebumps television show theme song. They are well hidden on the internet, unfortunately, so it's hard to find recorded materials. The bassist guy was super cool and cute, too.  Anyway... I have a bunch more that have been hidden in an old LR catalog that I've been cleaning up. I've started noticing patterns in my photography. I don't know if that's a good thing that I should stick with or not. I'm worried about all of my stuff looking the same, though I guess there's not too much I can do about it...  _1105037 by Kiwithing, on Flickr _1105030 by Kiwithing, on Flickr _1105028 by Kiwithing, on FlickrEDIT: Try out DXO. It's pretty dope. My workflow's basically DXO (photo wide exposure / light / color adjustments and PRIME denoising) > Import into LR (as .dng files using the plugin installed with DXO) > Do black and white conversions and / or adjustment brush dips. Sharizard fucked around with this message at 20:59 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Sharizard posted:PRIME denoising Embrace the noise. Noise actually gives a sharper image. Denoising just causes lack of sharpness and kind of a muddy photo. Noise is *not* bad.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Well, I do adjust the slider. I don't expect or want to get 100% of noise removed. That is super unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Embrace the noise. Noise actually gives a sharper image. Denoising just causes lack of sharpness and kind of a muddy photo. DxO is really good at retaining detail, sometimes shockingly good. It's also very good at B&W conversions when you get Filmpack to go with it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
HPL posted:DxO is really good at retaining detail, sometimes shockingly good. It's also very good at B&W conversions when you get Filmpack to go with it. I guess I just don't understand the obsession with removing noise.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
It's not really an obsession. It's just tastefully removing it if I have to or if it'd legit make things look better. I don't even use PRIME all the time. If the lighting is good enough or I like the noise as it is, I end up not removing anything. There's a set of sliders where I can control stuff like this to taste. I shoot on a OM-D EM-5. Things get a little weird with the noise sometimes. It's not all or nothing, you know.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Sharizard posted:It's not really an obsession. It's just tastefully removing it if I have to or if it'd legit make things look better. I don't even use PRIME all the time. If the lighting is good enough or I like the noise as it is, I end up not removing anything. There's a set of sliders where I can control stuff like this to taste. I shoot on a OM-D EM-5. Things get a little weird with the noise sometimes. Let's see what it looks like without the noise reduction.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Here are some ones I like that were untouched give or take some color / B&W changes. You will probably think these are trash regardless. _7117088 by Kiwithing, on Flickr P8030133 by Kiwithing, on Flickr P8030070 by Kiwithing, on FlickrSorry for being bad at photos.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Sharizard posted:Here are some ones I like that were untouched give or take some color / B&W changes. You will probably think these are trash regardless. I think they are great. Don't take a critique so personally or you'll never improve.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
I can handle critique, and I do think I am way overdue for a PAD post. The thing that bothered me was that it felt as if you made some assumptions about how and why I do things. It seemed like you were trying to "school" me on digital noise and noise reduction. I don't know, maybe I was feeling lovely and read too much into your post or whatever. And by all means, if my poo poo looks like poo poo, you have full permission to tell me. (Please tell me. Ha ha.) I don't share photos with friends, because I know the default "Good Jorb" is going to come out of their mouths, and bands tend not to complain. The guy in the first photo is an editorial photographer and has yet to complain about any photos I've sent him of his band. ...And I find that extremely suspicious. lol
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Sharizard posted:I can handle critique, and I do think I am way overdue for a PAD post. The thing that bothered me was that it felt as if you made some assumptions about how and why I do things. It seemed like you were trying to "school" me on digital noise and noise reduction. I don't know, maybe I was feeling lovely and read too much into your post or whatever. jesus christ. I just said embrace noise. then complimented you on the untouched photos. seriously....relax.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
I'm calm. I was just explaining the situation on my end. That's all.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
12 new posts aw yeah it's photo ti...oh nosie arguments should have died by the time the 5d mk2 came out. don't use in-camera noise reduction and the digic 3/4 sensors had good enough performance up to 3200 and megapixels that it's a non issue whether you like it or not that said digital noise can look like utter poo poo because of the uniform patterns that's inherent in digital sensors and it's usually an extra step to get better looking grain if you're wanting prominence but hey whatever I'm shooting Peaches on Wednesday night so that'll be fun. Tonnes o' dick on stage.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
DxO gives better results if I try at it but I prefer Lightroom's interface, even with DxO now having better integration with Lightroom. My workflow is disorganized enough to begin with; having multiple tools makes it worse. Anyway, content: 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
Newer sensors have better noise than older ones. The older ones had very patterned noise that really stood out. The noise on newer sensors is more random, so it's more like film grain and not as jarring. At least that's what I've found.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Finally got to shoot Peaches in a non-DJ set setting - got sprayed with champagne and got grinded on by too many people because there was no photo pit due to the giant inflatable penis (that I didn't stay around for). Good fun.   Someone down in Sydney managed to get this photo of the inside of the giant inflatable phallus with Peaches inside and it's loving AMAZING 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
That's goddamn ridiculous! I'm shooting Opeth tomorrow (my first band shoot in a good 6 months) so I'm hoping I can pull some magic off! in the meantime here's my favourite live photo I've ever taken.  ScottStock 2014 by bang3rachi, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
ohay, our very own homegrown Rukes has an article about him: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/dance/6554037/rukes-conquered-dance-photography
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:Someone down in Sydney managed to get this photo of the inside of the giant inflatable phallus with Peaches inside and it's loving AMAZING  Brought the x100t along to see how it would do at a show. It overexposed a little but the shutter did a good job at keeping 1/15s usable. I'll have to play with the metering settings next time. ape fucked around with this message at 09:51 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
ape posted:^ Awesome. what does the shutter have anything to do with a low shutter speed being useable?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:what does the shutter have anything to do with a low shutter speed being useable? Leaf shutter vs focal-plane shutter/mirror movement, presumably.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
Yeah, it's probably just placebo but I feel like there is a bit of a difference. That shot was with the camera over my head. The difference in sound is pretty awesome too, and if you use the electronic shutter it's totally silent.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 06:48
|
|