|
8th-samurai posted:Ah but then you would have to carry a large camera on an engagement shoot. There is a benefit to a simplified kit when you are on the move with a couple. Large camera and tripod and careful set ups tend to bore normal people. A lot of couples get antsy in the time it takes to set up a light stand and flash. There are also a lot of handholdable MF cameras with big apertures, i mean you can get a f/1.7 for the mamiya 645 system, and jsut about everybody has an 80mm/2.8, also, an old 4x5 press camera is probably more nimble than you'd imagine... I mean, if this process requires them to stand absolutely still for 30 seconds, there are other options, and they're less expensive than you think...
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
dunno posted:There are also a lot of handholdable MF cameras with big apertures, i mean you can get a f/1.7 for the mamiya 645 system Really? I thought the widest was the 80mm f/1.9?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 01:28
|
|
|
HPL posted:Really? I thought the widest was the 80mm f/1.9? You're quite right, I apologize for my error.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 01:30
|
|
|
dunno posted:I mean, if this process requires them to stand absolutely still for 30 seconds, there are other options, and they're less expensive than you think...
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 11:25
|
|
|
spf3million posted:It seems like they'd only really need to be still for a couple seconds while you fire off a panorama's worth of shots all at once. That guy used 62 different photos but that seems excessive to me. 20 or 30 should be plenty. And when you stitch, you don't really need to take alot of time recomposing, just point, shoot, move the camera little, shoot again. 7-10 seconds max should be plenty. Meh, I think it will take 1-3 seconds per frame, so you are looking at 20 to 180 seconds per subject. Which in all honesty not too bad either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 15:20
|
|
|
LuisX posted:Meh, I think it will take 1-3 seconds per frame, so you are looking at 20 to 180 seconds per subject. Which in all honesty not too bad either. On a high-end digital camera, it's definitely not going to take 3 seconds per frame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 15:45
|
|
|
mediaphage posted:On a high-end digital camera, it's definitely not going to take 3 seconds per frame. at ~7fps in 10 seconds you can get 70 frames which is should be more than enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 17:16
|
|
|
You definitely cannot do a panorama while holding down the shutter and panning. You'll get motion blur unless you're shooting at absurdly high shutter speeds. You have to shoot, recompose, shoot, recompose. Panning horizontal for a regular pano you can do 1 per second easily, but you'll really have to move if you want faster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 17:47
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Ah but then you would have to carry a large camera on an engagement shoot. There is a benefit to a simplified kit when you are on the move with a couple. Large camera and tripod and careful set ups tend to bore normal people. A lot of couples get antsy in the time it takes to set up a light stand and flash. This is so off the mark and I'm not sure if it's because you've never done engagement shoots before or if you're just really bad at them. People get antsy when you aren't prepared adequately and it takes you a long time to switch shots. To do a good engagement shoot out of studio you have to discuss with your subjects BEFORE you do it what they want out of the shoot and what you're capable of and then BEFORE the shoot you have to go out to the site of the shoot WITH YOUR ASSISTANT and set up all of your shots, try them out, and figure out the best ways to go from shot to shot smoothly and quickly in a way that isn't going to upset your subject. If you and your assistant are genial and good to work with, even with subjects that are generally uncomfortable with having their photos taken, you can burn through a shoot in no time at all while everyone has fun and come out with tonnes of good shots. Equipment bulk is an important consideration but with proper planning it shouldn't be an issue at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 18:00
|
|
|
Yeah I totally agree. Preparing your subject beforehand so they know how you work and what your process is really crucial. Whenever I do editorial stuff I always have the editor inform the subject BEFORE the shoot that I'm a studio photographer and I have a lot of equipment and it takes a while to set up but the result is worth it (and I also call and explain this myself). If someone thinks you are going to show up with a camera and snap a picture in 5 minutes and you show up with a van full of equipment and assistants and spend an hour setting up they will not be happy. I always scout locations beforehand and have at least 1 or 2 solid ideas (like sketched out and know exactly how I want it lit) so when I get there my assistant can go straight to setting poo poo up while I talk to the subject and look around for another possible set up so there's no downtime. In my experience there is a direct correlation between how successful a shoot is and how much you prep your subject. Even if you start off with a plan for a crappy image it doesn't matter, all that matters is that you have something to jump into right when you get there so nobody's standing around waiting. I have a friend who shoots 4x5 and he has the same conversation with his subjects beforehand about how he works and why he does it, as long as you explain and people know what to expect things go a lot more smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2009 18:35
|
|
|
sorry if this has already been asked, but what are the best ways to deal with super harsh shadows when shooting in bright sunlight?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2009 03:53
|
|
|
There's a couple things you can do. You can fill flash, you can shoot in the shade, you can reflect the sun as a fill, you can hold a giant cloth tarp over someone's head to create shade. Basically it comes down to: find a way to get light into those shadows, or diffuse/block that sunlight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2009 04:01
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I always scout locations beforehand and have at least 1 or 2 solid ideas (like sketched out and know exactly how I want it lit) I don't think any photographers here sketch out their ideas on paper ahead of time -- for better or worse. I wonder if most professionals do either. Edit: yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about, ignore this statement. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Oct 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2009 04:20
|
|
|
I would think most, if not all, professionals at least previsualize whether they sketch it or not. It's a good habit to get into anyways. edit: basically for real shoots you have to have some kind of plan, idea, or whatever to go straight into when you get there. Sometimes I scrap it as soon as I walk into a location and see something better but you gotta have a starting point and be prepared. I also always research the subject before the shoot so I just do it as a part of that. brad industry fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Oct 1, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2009 05:01
|
|
|
I always sketch out/write out for a shoot. It keeps things going smooth and saves time on lighting setups and then the models aren't as antsy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2009 05:05
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I don't think any photographers here sketch out their ideas on paper ahead of time -- for better or worse. I wonder if most professionals do either. Well I do, but I'm a 3D artist first, photography is my hobby. So a well sketched diagram ain't no thang to pop out in 60 seconds. The problem is that the level of perspective and distortion knowledge to properly work out the size of the subject in proportion to what will be viewable in the background is insane. So while you can work out some stuff on paper, nothing beats a research shoot with a friend/assistant beforehand to really nail that stuff. I personally like doing my sketches ON my research shoot photos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2009 10:53
|
|
|
Does zone focusing work in apeture priority? or do i have to set the apeture manually on the lens?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2009 20:39
|
|
|
As you as you can keep control of the aperture you can use zone focusing. The problem is that most/all modern lenses don't come with any kind of useful scales.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2009 11:47
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I would think most, if not all, professionals at least previsualize whether they sketch it or not. It's a good habit to get into anyways. I've been thinking of larger scale ideas that involve more people. In the last couple of weeks I've been going to locations and trying to take pictures. Yesterday I biked from my house to the oceanfront for a couple hours to figure some poo poo out and I want to go back again today. Photography has done so much to get me out and thinking. Its just so incredibly tough to get the idea out of my head onto paper. Then beyond that, getting 4 or 5 people to help me out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2009 15:51
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Then beyond that, getting 4 or 5 people to help me out. Beer or weed works well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2009 00:57
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:This is so off the mark and I'm not sure if it's because you've never done engagement shoots before or if you're just really bad at them. People get antsy when you aren't prepared adequately and it takes you a long time to switch shots. To do a good engagement shoot out of studio you have to discuss with your subjects BEFORE you do it what they want out of the shoot and what you're capable of and then BEFORE the shoot you have to go out to the site of the shoot WITH YOUR ASSISTANT and set up all of your shots, try them out, and figure out the best ways to go from shot to shot smoothly and quickly in a way that isn't going to upset your subject. If you and your assistant are genial and good to work with, even with subjects that are generally uncomfortable with having their photos taken, you can burn through a shoot in no time at all while everyone has fun and come out with tonnes of good shots. Equipment bulk is an important consideration but with proper planning it shouldn't be an issue at all. Yes, I talk to my clients and explain my working methods. It's great that you preplan all your shots with an assistant. I'm happy that you live in a fairytale land where your clients never get nervous or impatient because you and YOUR ASSISTANT are so awesome. No matter how well you prepare some people they are just not comfortable in front of a camera. Adding a 4x5 in just to grab a couple of shots needlessly complicates the shoot. I preplan all my shoots and don't take forever to set up shots. Throwing a speedlight on a stand takes about a minute and that includes test shots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2009 11:40
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Yes, I talk to my clients and explain my working methods. It's great that you preplan all your shots with an assistant. I'm happy that you live in a fairytale land where your clients never get nervous or impatient because you and YOUR ASSISTANT are so awesome. I wasn't lucid on this before: I'm not a commercial portrait photographer and I probably never will be one but I've acted as the assistant dozens of times in the past for a few different photogs. One of the many things I've learned, which I'm sure you couldn't care less to hear after that revelation, is that portrait photography is a service industry. It's your job as a professional to ensure your subjects comfort. There will always be variables that might cause your client to get antsy (unpreparedness, tight schedule, doesn't love other subject as much as originally thought, photographers crappy attitude) but it's your job, and this is the real skill of the craft, where the wheat is separated from the chaff in this saturated industry, to consider and deal with those problems, because, honestly, it doesn't take a lot of technical skill to be a professional portrait photographer. Insinuating that "throwing a speedlight on a stand" should take you any longer than setting up a 4x5 camera when adequately prepared makes me wonder how often you've worked in the format because, if you have actually prepared your shot, putting a monorail camera on a tripod and taking a photo can take 30 seconds. And, to that end, I've never seen anyone anything but curious and intrigued by a 4x5 camera. I wonder, are you still arguing that your method of taking a few dozen shots to get your shallow depth of field is intrinsically superior to the alternative method? Because, from the discussion we've just had, it seems pretty clear that the latter is just as effective and at least as accessible (with regard to photog client interaction) if not more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2009 19:53
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I wasn't lucid on this before: I'm not a commercial portrait photographer and I probably never will be one but I've acted as the assistant dozens of times in the past for a few different photogs. One of the many things I've learned, which I'm sure you couldn't care less to hear after that revelation, is that portrait photography is a service industry. It's your job as a professional to ensure your subjects comfort. There will always be variables that might cause your client to get antsy (unpreparedness, tight schedule, doesn't love other subject as much as originally thought, photographers crappy attitude) but it's your job, and this is the real skill of the craft, where the wheat is separated from the chaff in this saturated industry, to consider and deal with those problems, because, honestly, it doesn't take a lot of technical skill to be a professional portrait photographer. I'm have never used a 4x5 for a portrait session. Nor have I ever used the described digital method. I never said either method was superior just that one would take longer. I prefer to work simply. I carry one camera, three lenses and one flash on location. A 4x5 simply wouldn't work for me on location I move around too much and prefer to be spontaneous. With some subjects the time doesn't matter at all. You could take an hour to set up each shot and they don't care, because they trust you are doing a good job and they love your work. Other subjects are only there because their wife/fiance are making them no amount of reassurance or snappy banter from the photographer will make them comfortable. I'm not saying you are wrong just that your method can make things worse with certain kinds of clients. I was probably a bit to general in my original post. It is nice that you automatically assume I know nothing about customer service.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2009 23:26
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:There will always be variables that might cause your client to get antsy (unpreparedness, tight schedule, doesn't love other subject as much as originally thought, photographers crappy attitude) but it's your job, and this is the real skill of the craft, where the wheat is separated from the chaff in this saturated industry, to consider and deal with those problems, because, honestly, it doesn't take a lot of technical skill to be a professional portrait photographer. I saw Dan Winters speak a week or so ago, and while he is obviously a genius when it comes to technical and conceptual stuff, 90% of his skill is his personality. I don't know how to describe it, he's one of those people you instantly like and has this real gentle, confident way of talking. If you watch a video of him talk you'll see what I mean, he's like photo Santa Claus or something. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia8t6QSk5hA
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2009 03:40
|
|
|
I went and shot a track day yesterday with my new 70-200mm, because I love the DOF, I kept it in F4, but now I'm not happy with my images as there is no sense of speed. Is there a way to keep my wide aperture, but force a shutter slow down without blowing everything out? I was thinking there's probably some sort of filter or something? But am not at all sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2009 17:12
|
|
|
Neutral Density filters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2009 17:17
|
|
|
Not sure what ISO you're shooting at, but bring that down too. If you're at 100 already then what notlodar said 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2009 17:38
|
|
|
Fantastic, cheers! And yeah I was already at 100, sorry I forgot to mention that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2009 17:44
|
|
|
A5H posted:Fantastic, cheers! What body? That's the only point of having ISO 50 on some bodies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2009 18:25
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:What body? That's the only point of having ISO 50 on some bodies. It's just a 350D. So ISO 100 is the lowest unfortunately 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2009 19:09
|
|
|
Would a fisheye lens make it easier to do the whole "tiny planets" photoshop-a-panorama-into-a-circle thing, or would it skew the perspective too much?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 01:55
|
|
|
I just did my first shoot for a second job I just took up. It's indoor and external real estate photography (and virtual tours.) I want to impress the real estate agent, and I think HDR would be good to get the views out the windows visible. When I took the photos today I bracketed like a motherfucker. I haven't paid any attention to photo gear or software for about three years. What's a good HDR merging program? I'd like something that's just an HDR program and not a photo processing suite. I broke my good computer so I'm on something a little slow and underpowered. Of course I'd like a program that's free but I'd be fine buying something later. I just need to do an HDR merge on a lot of pictures tonight. I can figure out the perfect solution later, but right now I just need to get these done. Any help?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 02:55
|
|
|
Photomatix Pro 3. Be really really light on the HDR if you're gonna do it, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 03:02
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:Photomatix Pro 3. Be really really light on the HDR if you're gonna do it, though. Yeah. Go until it looks the way it looks to the human eye, but not much farther or it's going to look silly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 03:04
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:You definitely cannot do a panorama while holding down the shutter and panning. You'll get motion blur unless you're shooting at absurdly high shutter speeds. You have to shoot, recompose, shoot, recompose. Panning horizontal for a regular pano you can do 1 per second easily, but you'll really have to move if you want faster. If the idea is to limit DOF you will be shooting at or near wide open and therefore at "absurdly" high shutter speeds. Also, any softness in the image due to blur or focusing issues will be lessened the more pictures you take and stitch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 03:17
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:Photomatix Pro 3. Be really really light on the HDR if you're gonna do it, though. I downloaded it and I'm going to try it. Don't worry, I share your disgust with overly-done, tacky HDR. This is the only photography I've ever needed it for, since it's so high-contrast. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 03:38
|
|
|
you can also open up each of the images as layers in photoshop, use your inside-metered image as the background layer, then mask off the outside-metered image so that it is only visible on the windows. since the windows are probably a fairly simple shape that may work better, photomatix will probably leave some halos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 05:21
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:you can also open up each of the images as layers in photoshop, use your inside-metered image as the background layer, then mask off the outside-metered image so that it is only visible on the windows. since the windows are probably a fairly simple shape that may work better, photomatix will probably leave some halos. Any method that's marginally labor-intensive will make this job much less worth it. I've got to figure out a way to do these photo batches quickly or my pay (if you count it hourly, I mean) plummets. I haven't had good results with Photomatix yet, but I haven't had much time to learn it. I don't NEED to make them HDR but I want them to look noticeably more impressive than the last person they had doing them. I took her last photographer's rate for this first shoot but I want her to be wowed so I can ask for more money for my regular rate. I told her I'd wait to quote my rate once I did one shoot and got a feel for what kind of work it is and how long it would take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 05:42
|
|
|
Hi, I've got a Canon G10 which is great for me because I don't know anything about photography, but this gives me lots of options to learn and I've been teaching myself how to use it and the features. What I was wondering though is I'd like to take advantage of the lense adapter. I'd prefer the genuine canon accessory, but a company called Opteka offer a cheaper solution as well as more range including macro and wide-angle lenses. My question is will an amature such as myself notice the difference in quality? This is what I'm looking at: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Opteka-Telephoto-Powershot-Digital-Camera/dp/B001MS4W3K/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1254914973&sr=8-10
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 12:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Would a fisheye lens make it easier to do the whole "tiny planets" photoshop-a-panorama-into-a-circle thing, or would it skew the perspective too much? It depends. If the fisheye distortion is easily corrected by DxO or Photoshop, it MIGHT make it easier. I guess my question is, if you can use a normal view lens with very little distortion and just stitch together 10-12 photos instead of 5-8, why would you bother with the lens that might distort? Shooting tiny planets is easy by the way. It takes all of about 20 seconds to go fully manual (including manual focus), orient yourself correctly and snap all the shots you need. If you're going to shoot one with a fish, give yourself plenty of overlap so that when you remove the distortion from your images your software has plenty of area to line up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2009 13:07
|
|
