|
The tiger He destroyed his cage Yes YES The tiger is out
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
owns - took a long while to figure it wasn't an artifact of development process that i wasn't familiar with, a fold and a tear in the photo providing interest and contrast owns - incredible how the stripes on the bathing suit mimic the ripples in the water and have me second guessing whether the stripes are just a trick of the sunlight, whether she is a manifestation of the pool itself
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:37
|
|
|
did some walking around after spending most of the past month concussed or influenzaed. difficulty level: freezing cold, new-to-me wide lens, and used darktable for the first time    
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:30
|
|
|
I got asked to shoot a wedding I had done maternity photos with the couple and they liked them enough. plus probably know I’m gonna charge mates rates at best. I said yes. what’s the worst that can happen? might see about renting another camera for the day and having 135 and something else. that 135 is the magic but it’s not always the best choice (only most of the time)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
Yeah, I feel like 135 would be terrible for the majority of wedding shots. It'd be good for the getting ready shots and portraits at the ceremony but for capturing the broader scene and celebration absolutely not. I'd be carrying a 28, 50 and 80 personally with a primary focus on the 50 and 80.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 01:48
|
|
|
arguably I should lean on the experience of others I might have to hire a better 50
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 01:57
|
|
|
agreed that a 135 is going to be way long for a wedding. it may work well for staged photos but for anything else you’ll probably want something shorterInsanite posted:did some walking around after spending most of the past month concussed or influenzaed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 01:59
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Over the past few weeks I've been taking the steps to get into dry plate photography and jumped straight into coating my own plates. I shot my first "successful" one today. Out of 4 plates I shot 1 exposure test (cause I need to figure out how sensitive my emulsion is) 1 photo and smashed 2 when they fell out of the holder in the camera. I'd love to play with one of these badboys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 02:09
|
|
|
akadajet posted:I'd love to play with one of these badboys. It's a lot of fun but a lot of work especially in the loving around phase. I'm coating more plates this weekend to shoot with next weekend so I can get down a repeatable process before I get serious with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 02:30
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I said yes. what’s the worst that can happen? you’ll do better than my cousin’s photographer. it was just his friend and he answered a cell phone call while everyone was waiting on the couple to make their entrance at the start of the ceremony. he was also dressed like a clown and pretty unprofessional. i wonder if there’s like a similar scenario you could do to iron out the kinks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 02:55
|
|
|
Isn't a 24-70 and 70-200 basically the standard wedding kit e: ^ I know it's not what you mean but I'm imagining he actually had the white grease paint and red nose etc
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 04:34
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Yeah, I feel like 135 would be terrible for the majority of wedding shots. It'd be good for the getting ready shots and portraits at the ceremony but for capturing the broader scene and celebration absolutely not. I'd be carrying a 28, 50 and 80 personally with a primary focus on the 50 and 80. yep this is why they make 24/28-70/80 f2.8 zooms. most of what you’re going to end up doing during a wedding, at least in terms of number of shots and time spent on shutter, is ‘candid’ poo poo around the prep areas, dining tables, and dance floor. the portraits are important, but they’re a relatively short part of the session. i’d have to double check but the first wedding I did, but i’m pretty sure the vast majority of the shots i got were from my 16-40/4 or, once the reception started and we got to dancing, 10-17 fisheye. my second wedding, i switched to having a zoom on one body and my 77/1.8 on the other (both aps-c). i had fixed-focals on deck for portrait time, but this is one case where you’re going to sacrifice some of your creative comfort zone for the convenience. if you have adequate time, go rent-hire a walkaround zoom and get familiar with how it feels, then rent it again when the wedding comes up. if you don’t have time, rent a couple of days early and pester the poo poo out of your friends and family so you can get a sense for what distances you’ll want to work at for individuals and different numbers of folks in small groups. also - be completely honest with the couple if you need to when discussing with them about what you *can* do. think in terms of “i can be in one place at a time,” “i have access to flash but only near camera, not surrounding the dance floor,” “i can do group portraits” or not… while you’re at sharing your capabilities, see if you can sit down and get expectations from them - maybe based on the schedule for the day, maybe based on other wedding albums from photogs online - of what shots of which moments they absolutely cannot live without, it’ll help you plan how you move around the event. get a tour of the facility ahead of time so you know how the space is laid out and can think through your movements. shooting weddings for friends was a lot of fun, but it takes prep work, you will have to try harder than you think, and while you’ll probably wish you had done it differently, as long as the couple feels like they got what they needed, you’ll end up being weirded out by seeing your work on their walls for years to come. good luck and enjoy!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 04:34
|
|
|
nurrwick posted:
thanks for this. lots to think about. it’s later in the year so plenty of time, in fact to just be honest with myself about if I think it’s doable or if I just don’t have the ability to take a wide photo to save myself. and yeah starts with a convo about expectations .. the more I think about it the less certain I feel lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 10:16
|
|
|
where is beefy btw
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 10:16
|
|
|
imo this fellow goes a bit over the top with his postcyberpunk video production, but I guess it helps him get those Patreon dollars - he does touch on some fun less-well-known kit in his videos though, so I can't knock him too hard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwrZLeKp9SE Would like to play around with one of these.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 12:13
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:where is beefy btw i've been busy with not-photography garbage lately and really want to try out the new stuff i got beyond a few test shots this week was all booked up for me but maybe i'll do something this weekend if some computer poo poo i wanted to do doesn't catch me first anyway i agree with megabound's advice re: wedding lenses, although maybe you might want a 35 in there. good luck with it
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:anyway i agree with megabound's advice re: wedding lenses, although maybe you might want a 35 in there. good luck with it i’d say only my 35 and 135 are good (sigma 35 f/1.4 and 135f/1.8) the 85 is good enough. dunno about the 50s, neither are anything to write home about. I am used to leaning on my lens to make my photos good lol. but with the 50 and especially with the 35 I’ll have to learn how to group shot and etc without it looking poo poo. I was gonna sell the 35 but maybe I shouldn’t just yet
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
Your are going to have to stop down
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 23:10
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:i’d say only my 35 and 135 are good (sigma 35 f/1.4 and 135f/1.8) the 85 is good enough. dunno about the 50s, neither are anything to write home about. when i did a few shots at my brother's wedding (i wasn't the photographer, but i brought my g85) i leaned pretty hard on my 25/0.9 (so, 50mm equiv.) and the FD 28 strangely enough (afaict with converter, it's ~35mm). the 85/1.4 (170 equiv) was great for portraits but horrible for pretty much anything else. it's also the biggest and heaviest MFT lens i have so i didn't use it very often for group shots my meike 12/2.2 (24mm) was indispensable though. i highly recommend bringing at least one lens that's ~20-25mm (not talking MFT here; 35mm equiv.) oh and also (at least at his venue) it was pretty dark and lots of people were very drunk and therefore moving around a lot, so fast lenses might be preferable
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 23:17
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Your are going to have to stop down yep
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 23:17
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Your are going to have to stop down 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 06:59
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:fast lenses might be preferable id have to spend a whole lot to get faster lenses than I have, and pretty much puts zooms out of league
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 07:00
|
|
|
echi sets his lens to f4, spontaneously bursts into flames
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 08:25
|
|
|
TIL lomography makes a 4x5 graflok back that takes instax wide film  $250 CAD tho :[
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 06:29
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2024 07:16
|
|
|
some 4x5 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 02:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 02:43
|
|
|
those are all real good. drat i wanna shoot some b&w now
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 02:51
|
|
|
something nice about this keychron, I set up the dial to be mouse scroll wheel so in lightroom, I click on a slider, and then use the knob. love to use that knob
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 12:53
|
|
|
it's photo doldrums right now, beginning of a semester and mostly crap weather has kept me off the streets. we did have a nice looking day last week, though.  something about this frame... the contrast really popped for it, where the previous few were washed out as hell from uncontrollable flare. i'm hoping later sunsets start to help get me outside after work, and we get back to having tolerable temperatures and lack of rain on the weekends. on atmospheric moisture... back in 2022 i got a 16-85 zoom with weather resistance because i figured it'd be nice to have something that got to 84 degrees diagonal that i could use in mist. it's a tolerable lens on its own, though it's never really done it for me. i went out doing a handling and imaging comparison yesterday and while the corners are definitely nicer wide-open than my old 16-45, the size makes it harder to justify taking out with other glass, and the close-focus capabilities are pretty disappointing. the real bummer for me is that the 16-45 was long ago discontinued and other photogs seem to value the extra range more than being able to bury the front element in things. i manic-energy ordered a mid-80s era 24-50/4 zoom that i think i'm going to absolutely love on full-frame and film based on my testing indoors yesterday... and i've been really happy with the modern aps-c 20-40, though i'd almost certainly rather it have been a 15-30. someday i'm going to pulll the trigger on a 20-35 or 18-35 ff lens, i'm sure. i don't know, i think i'm probably the weirdo here, since i love 2-3x zoom ratio feel. i do definitely get what other people see in the convenience of broad-range zoom lenses, at least... and i guess at some point i'll have to settle for less-than-ideal if i want to be able to do work in wet weather. or *shudder* using my phone (ew). that's a lot of words for a photo thread, here are a couple more images from a few weeks ago stack o bricks, inappropriately wide aperture:  bortle:  zoom, enhance:  i need to go back here when the rhodos are in bloom: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 17:42
|
|
|
beautiful bortles the weather around here dropped about 30° overnight but i found a public nature reserve that's not too far from here that i think i'll head to when i have a little more free time my schedule is depressingly almost completely full of doctor's appointments for the next two weeks though. maybe i'll find a free day somewhere but idk getting 7 injections in and around your spine really loving hurts for at least 3 days afterwards 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 18:30
|
|
|
a false sense of security has been lulled into my with my 135mm I took maybe 15% of the photos at my shoot last night with 85mm. its certainly handy, but looking at them now I was thinking, how have I got motion blur or something, and only now am I clicking it's coz the area I am looking isn't centre of the lens. I probably should have stopped down. too late now that was just never an issue with the longer lens. if it was blurry it was because it was out of focus, or motion blur. don't think I've ever once noticed lack of sharpness around the edges. so I am just not used to considering that at all. maybe I just need a better 85
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:my schedule is depressingly almost completely full of doctor's appointments for the next two weeks though. maybe i'll find a free day somewhere but idk getting 7 injections in and around your spine really loving hurts for at least 3 days afterwards mate 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
just thinking out loud something I am a lil bit torn on is “correct” exposure say for example portrait stuff. once someone told me face values should be around 70-80 or something idk if that’s true but it’s a rough rule of thumb that works. but it’s also a bit of a blunt tool. right now I have in mine a photo I took last night with the sun behind the subject. irl its not easy to see her face cos the sun is in your eyes, use the magic of camera technology to exposure the image in a way that you can’t see in real life, or underexpose (in this case) the face a bit because that’s just what it was like when I was there idk I suspect others might think it’s a touch dark. but gently caress them lol not dissimilar to the grief I got in the dork room with a photo taken during blue hour and people said the colour balance wasn’t warm enough. I personally don’t think the point of colour balance is to eliminate environmental influence and make every skin tone the same. maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle now i’m gonna go take picture of my 12yo first day of high school 🥹
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
i just try to make the thing i like in the photo take as much of the domain of the histogram as possible and sort the actual value of the photo out in post there are probably situations where this is bad but my brain took a lot of dgital signal processing classes in undergrad so I can't help thinking like this
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 20:51
|
|
|
Corla Plankun posted:i just try to make the thing i like in the photo take as much of the domain of the histogram as possible and sort the actual value of the photo out in post yeah for sure, that’s kinda how I’ve ended up in the scenario that lead me to post about it  so much backlight, I want to minimise blowing out the sky (imo blowing out the sky is ok as long as there is a gentle gradient coming off it), meaning her face is sort of underexposed, but it’s also more representative of real life anyway
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
glorious
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
Maybe shoot your subjects so they're not backlit instead?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
sorry but the vibe is sick
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 21:22
|
|