|
Karl Barks posted:oh my god i thought these were fake Sadly, they are all directly lifted from his site word for word. Ken is a real... character.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
Karl Barks posted:oh my god i thought these were fake 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
What's your opinion on putting copyright watermarks on photos?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
If you have a unique shot that is legitimately at risk of unauthorized use it makes sense. If you're a hobby photographer don't put one on photos of your dog that's stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
If anyone buys from KEH, how low in the quality scale have you gone and still received a lens where the scratches and such don't impact the image quality?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Drunk Badger posted:If anyone buys from KEH, how low in the quality scale have you gone and still received a lens where the scratches and such don't impact the image quality? BGN. UG is a gamble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Saddamnit posted:What's your opinion on putting copyright watermarks on photos? Make sure it says 'John Smith Photography' with an aperture logo. That way people know you are serious about your art.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Saddamnit posted:What's your opinion on putting copyright watermarks on photos?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:BGN. UG is a gamble. Yes, this. Very happy with my BGN. The dings and scratches on the outside make me look like almost a legit photographer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
spog posted:Make sure it says 'John Smith Photography' with an aperture logo. make sure to use papyrus font
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:make sure to use papyrus font Atelier Bart Radfucker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
I'm in an awkward situation. When you book a photographer (e.g. for a wedding), is it normal/accepted/okay to ask for the unedited (RAW) files? Or is it a case of "you get what you get"? I'm quite picky with the type of editing I like, and couldn't find a photographer in the location of our wedding (small, remote town) that I was 100% happy with. Now I'm about to sign a contract and I'm having second thoughts, in case I don't like their editing and would like to change something - but the way the contract is worded, it sounds like this is a serious no-go. Thoughts on this issue? plasmoduck fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Jun 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
I very much doubt you are going to find someone willing to give you raws that is also a good photographer. You are paying them for their editing skill too, their edits are a part of their brand, the photos that they publish and the name that is on them is their advertising. You take it and change it, suddenly their name is on something that isn't theirs and will almost definitely (in their eyes) be a worse product. If they thought your changes were better, they'd have either done it that way or you are cheaping out somewhere you really shouldn't. It's exactly like asking coke for their recipe because you want to add a little sugar to it for your market stand and getting surprised when they tell you no. E: Do you have experience with photography? Most of your favourite shots almost definitely did not come out of the camera looking as they do. Editing doesn't mean doing some garish HDR crap, it means carefully cutting down a tonne of photos to the final selection, and carefully refining those into their best form. It's difficult to be good at, and you are probably unintentionally insulting all the photographers you've spoken too so far by implying you'll be better without having even seen their final work. If you aren't happy with the final result, talk to the photographer. At the end of the day, they rely on word of mouth just as much as any other business, and will probably work with you if you are being reasonable. underage at the vape shop fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Jun 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:I very much doubt you are going to find someone willing to give you raws that is also a good photographer. I got married in January and hired a wedding photographer that was totally excellent and had no hesitation whatsoever in just dumping every single one of the RAWs he shot throughout the night on a USB. Not saying this is standard practice necessarily, but it's certainly possible to find them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
plasmoduck posted:I'm in an awkward situation. If you don't like their editing, then you shouldn't hire them. When you hire a photographer, you're hiring them because you like their style, of which their editing is a part of. Most serious wedding (or commercial) photographers would probably not give you the raw files. The only way I see that happening is if you take full creative control and just get someone to be the button presser, in which case you can save money and just rent your own camera + remote trigger release. And then you edit all the photos yourself. I have had quite a number of friends who are going down this route already actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
elgarbo posted:I got married in January and hired a wedding photographer that was totally excellent and had no hesitation whatsoever in just dumping every single one of the RAWs he shot throughout the night on a USB. Not saying this is standard practice necessarily, but it's certainly possible to find them. Yeah they do exist. I'm not a wedding photographer, but I'm friends with people who are, and they've told me photographers that do are rare for the reasons I said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Yeah they do exist. I'm not a wedding photographer, but I'm friends with people who are, and they've told me photographers that do are rare for the reasons I said. Yeah, my photographer also didn't give a drat about sending us only good photos either... is the groom pulling a weird face? Who cares, it goes on the USB.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
It's not the effort of putting them on a USB it's the concern the client is going to want those shots to get the same Lightroom time as the others. And I don't want to include a garbage shot and have someone/ potential client associate it with me.
VelociBacon fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Jun 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
Thanks for everyone's insight! I think I have a better overview now =)A Saucy Bratwurst posted:If they thought your changes were better, they'd have either done it that way or you are cheaping out somewhere you really shouldn't. I've been an avid hobby photographer for years and am fully aware of the power and pitfalls of post-processing. This particular photographer doesn't seem to edit the colour tones as much, whereas I prefer the current trend of faded VSCO/film-like editing. However they also don't over-edit, which is nice. alkanphel posted:If you don't like their editing, then you shouldn't hire them. When you hire a photographer, you're hiring them because you like their style, of which their editing is a part of. Most serious wedding (or commercial) photographers would probably not give you the raw files. The only way I see that happening is if you take full creative control and just get someone to be the button presser, in which case you can save money and just rent your own camera + remote trigger release. And then you edit all the photos yourself. I have had quite a number of friends who are going down this route already actually. I think ultimately we'll go with this photographer and hope that we can communicate well. I'll probably still take a few snaps myself when the ceremony is over so I can play around in Lightroom afterwards!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
I don't give out RAW files as a wedding photographer for one reason, sometimes it would make me look hella bad. the last wedding I shot was pretty much all purposefully underexposed to retain highlight details in the venue windows because it was in like a small log cabin thingy. I know that I have a couple of stops of leeway in the midtones of my sensors so it wasn't a big deal but if my clients saw that it'd look like 40gb of trash. If I was working for a photographer with instructions to shoot as neutral as possible and they would do the post then I wouldn't have an issue but I'd want to see a port first to prove they aren't gonna do something ungodly and then slap my name on it. Honestly though if you just want the VSCO look run the jpgs they give you through the filters it's not like you need RAWs to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:I don't give out RAW files as a wedding photographer for one reason, sometimes it would make me look hella bad. the last wedding I shot was pretty much all purposefully underexposed to retain highlight details in the venue windows because it was in like a small log cabin thingy. I know that I have a couple of stops of leeway in the midtones of my sensors so it wasn't a big deal but if my clients saw that it'd look like 40gb of trash. If I was working for a photographer with instructions to shoot as neutral as possible and they would do the post then I wouldn't have an issue but I'd want to see a port first to prove they aren't gonna do something ungodly and then slap my name on it. Honestly though if you just want the VSCO look run the jpgs they give you through the filters it's not like you need RAWs to do that. I guess that'd work without RAWs. I really wasn't thinking of editing and publishing that photographer's shots though (that would violate all sorts of things), just maybe make some edits for myself and my parents. However I got good news (well good for me...)! Before signing the contract, I heard back from a different photographer (who I had thought was unavailable but is apparently still in town!).  I really like her style so am very relieved, no need to step on anyone's toes!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Can lightroom or photoshop easily seperat foreground / background objects into layers? What I would like to do is take a couple of photos similar to this one, make everything but the cheetah transparent, print it on a slide and put it in my window. But there is a huge amount of fine detail in the fur / whiskers in the full resolution files I don't want to clip manually. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Ika posted:Can lightroom or photoshop easily seperat foreground / background objects into layers? There is a post-processing thread. The short answer is, No. There is no really easy way to capture all those fine hairs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
My dad bought a camera for mum to get into photography, and like anything that my mum gets into she gets bored a couple months in and drops the hobby. So that leaves me with the camera. It's a Canon EOS 70D, and i figured since I graduated and am about to travel, I might as well take some pictures for instagram likes while I'm doing it. I've messed around with cameras when I was a little kid and I learned some photogrammetry in University, so I get the gist of exposure and some basic composition. The camera comes with the kit 18-135mm STM lense and I'm gonna pick up a Yongnuo 50mm, I'm wondering if that's enough for 3-5 months of travel. I'm probably gonna shoot everything since half the time I'm going to be travelling alone. I might also attend some lower tier soccer games but I don't know if it's worth it buying a zoom lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
That combo is fine, the 50 prime is going to take a lot better shots than the kit lens at 50 but TBH if I was traveling j would just bring that kit lens. You want your trip to be about traveling not bungling around changing lenses. I think this is extra true if you're just starting. Personal preference I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
If you're gonna buy the Yongnuo 50mm anyway - and for $50 for a new nifty-fifty I say go for it - that's a pretty good combo. The 18-135 for walkin' around, the 50 for low-light and portraits - 50mm is a good focal length on APS-C for headshots, and that nice wide aperture means you can shoot your new bar friends in the face. The 18-135 will also work well for daytime outdoor soccer games, though it'll suffer indoors or at night. So that's when you swap to the 50 and take pictures of shoes. As long as you have a good supply of SD cards and can periodically dump your photos onto something like a harddrive or upload the good stuff to whatever site, you'll be fine for travelling as long as you like - camera hardware isn't going to be the deciding factor for the end of your trip. You might want to pick up a spare battery, Canon name-brand batteries will be expensive, but there are plenty of third-party alternatives for much more reasonable prices. There's also the My First DSLR thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3533640
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
SuperSix posted:My dad bought a camera for mum to get into photography, and like anything that my mum gets into she gets bored a couple months in and drops the hobby. For what it's worth, my camera broke right before I started a 3 month backpacking trip. I was originally planning on taking it and my 3 lenses with me. After weighing the pros and cons I decided to sell everything and buy a Sony RX100 with a 28-100 range on it and accept that I wouldn't have my special 50mm or 70-300 lenses with me. There was literally one picture during my entire trip I didn't get because I didn't have my lenses with me. I'm glad I wasn't lugging around all that weight with me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
huhu posted:For what it's worth, my camera broke right before I started a 3 month backpacking trip. I was originally planning on taking it and my 3 lenses with me. After weighing the pros and cons I decided to sell everything and buy a Sony RX100 with a 28-100 range on it and accept that I wouldn't have my special 50mm or 70-300 lenses with me. There was literally one picture during my entire trip I didn't get because I didn't have my lenses with me. I'm glad I wasn't lugging around all that weight with me. ExecuDork posted:If you're gonna buy the Yongnuo 50mm anyway - and for $50 for a new nifty-fifty I say go for it - that's a pretty good combo. The 18-135 for walkin' around, the 50 for low-light and portraits - 50mm is a good focal length on APS-C for headshots, and that nice wide aperture means you can shoot your new bar friends in the face. The 18-135 will also work well for daytime outdoor soccer games, though it'll suffer indoors or at night. So that's when you swap to the 50 and take pictures of shoes. VelociBacon posted:That combo is fine, the 50 prime is going to take a lot better shots than the kit lens at 50 but TBH if I was traveling j would just bring that kit lens. You want your trip to be about traveling not bungling around changing lenses. I think this is extra true if you're just starting. Personal preference I guess. Thanks for the advice guys! I'll migrate over to the other thread to ask the dumber questions. I'll grab some extra batteries and see if the final kit is too heavy and consider just taking one lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
SuperSix posted:Thanks for the advice guys! I'll migrate over to the other thread to ask the dumber questions. I'll grab some extra batteries and see if the final kit is too heavy and consider just taking one lens. Assuming the Yongnuo is a straight knockoff of the old Canon 50mm, it is an all plastic affair that weighs almost nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Unless it's a 1.4 pretty much all nifty fifty's are going to be tiny and portable. I just think it's not worth overlapping focal lengths for a total beginner on an international vacation. I'm sure the 70D can push enough ISO that he or she can use the kit lens in low light (although I'm a Nikon guy)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Beowulfs_Ghost posted:Assuming the Yongnuo is a straight knockoff of the old Canon 50mm, it is an all plastic affair that weighs almost nothing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSRtxcxJ8TI
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Anyone have any experience with cleaning digital camera sensors? I was taking some landscape pictures this morning at f/22 and focus close to infinity. In post processing I noticed some spots in the pictures. They weren't super big or dark, but certainly noticeable. Below is a test image I took today. I adjusted the contrast, whites, and blacks in Lighroom to show the spots better. Is this enough dust to concern myself with cleaning the sensor? If so, anyone have any experience with cleaning a sensor? I found this article, which seems to be pretty helpful: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/sensor-cleaning.aspx. Any advice you guys might have would be much appreciated.  Sensor Test 06192016 by Tom Alberi, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
I would praise Jesus if my sensor looked that clean at f/22.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
I don't peep my sensor until the pictures start looking like bugs are crawling on them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
How do you safely pack your photo gear for multi-day hikes? Most of the stuff I carry is the things I need for the hiking itself: tent, sleeping bag, gas burner, clothes, etc. I don't want a photo specific backpack, but I'd like to bring photo gear without having to worry about ruining it. A padded photo bag inside a dry bag?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I would praise Jesus if my sensor looked that clean at f/22. Do you do much landscape photography? If so, how do you take sharp photos without the dust showing up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Saddamnit posted:Do you do much landscape photography? If so, how do you take sharp photos without the dust showing up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Xabi posted:How do you safely pack your photo gear for multi-day hikes? Most of the stuff I carry is the things I need for the hiking itself: tent, sleeping bag, gas burner, clothes, etc. I don't want a photo specific backpack, but I'd like to bring photo gear without having to worry about ruining it. I use an "Internal Camera Unit", e.g. one of these Its not a good solution for accessing your stuff quickly, but it gets it to your destination protected. A lot of people would probably say it is not necessary as camera gear is fairly sturdy. I mainly use it so that i have all my camera stuff bundled together instead of in whichever nook and cranny is available in the backpack after you pack all the other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Xabi posted:A padded photo bag inside a dry bag? I do this if I'm taking more than one lens. If I only have one lens, I just wrap the camera in a t-shirt, and I keep an extra plastic bag handy in case it rains.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
Saddamnit posted:Do you do much landscape photography? If so, how do you take sharp photos without the dust showing up? By not stopping down to f/22 on a small sensor
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:02
|
|
