|
wasabimilkshake posted:Ah, thanks. 1/60th and f/4 at ISO 400 would be 1/30th and f/4 at ISO 200, right? Yeah, this is called reciprocity. And yeah you probably hosed your film up.
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2009 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
I use ratings the same way as nonanone. I use flags to mark images which are not heros, but have elements that I want to composite into the actual hero.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2009 01:32
|
|
|
Yeah pretty much, the only thing I use Bridge for anymore is batch renaming.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2009 02:00
|
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:So I've just ordered quite a few prints at various sizes (8x10, 8x12, 11x14, etc) and I am interested in finding a relatively cheap way of ordering some basic, decent frames that aren't complete poo poo. I don't like to have a lot of decor on my frames. Mostly just a wooden black frame maybe with a neutral mat. Any recommendations on a good place to order these online? americanframe.com
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2009 22:08
|
|
|
Wired is really well known for loving good photography and really making that a huge part of the magazine, which is a big part of why they are one of the few worth reading. http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2008/06/18/scott-dadich-creative-director-wired-magazine/
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2009 04:01
|
|
|
Recommendations for noise-reduction software for Mac that will let me just dump a batch in and hit go?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2009 20:14
|
|
|
You're in 16-bit mode, convert to 8-bit (Image->Mode) then save it. edit: that's like the #1 "So while you're here, I have this question..." I get asked when I digital tech. Seriously. brad industry fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Sep 15, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 06:46
|
|
|
The first thing everyone should learn about photography is that the camera sees differently than your eye. Operating a camera is literally the easiest loving thing in the world. The mechanics of photography are not rocket science, I learned to shoot on a AE-1 when I was 5. Once you get past that it's just ideas and execution. I think probably one of the most important things to being a photographer seriously is just constantly exposing yourself to all kinds of images, especially work you don't "get" or work that is challenging. Reading theory and criticism is probably just as important, just so that you can think about images in an intelligent way and articulate your thoughts better which is key to executing your own idea. But yeah, all you need to know about photography: Make images, think about them, look at images, think about them, then go make more.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2009 00:54
|
|
|
Can't you do something similar to this with the DoF stacking in CS4? Seems like that would be easier.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2009 19:45
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
SpunkyRedKnight posted:Also if in doubt slightly overexpose. Most cameras' LCDs get a little excessive with the blown highlights blinkies and when you go to process the file you can actually pull back quite a lot of info with recovery and then up the blacks or contrast. If you try to brighten shadows though it's probably going to look like poo poo, especially at high ISOs. No you should do the opposite. It is much harder to pull highlight detail down than it is to pull shadow detail up. You can bring shadows up 2-3 stops easily with a RAW file. Once a highlight is gone it's gone.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2009 19:58
|
|
|
SpunkyRedKnight posted:I meant that what the camera shows as clipped highlights is often not the case, plus once something is pure black or pure white it's gone whichever end it's on. I think the camera shows clipped highlights at around 250ish (where 255 is truly blown out). And no you are wrong, you can pull a poo poo load of detail out of pure black, like several stops worth. You cannot pull any detail out of blown highlights in digital. You can bring them down from 255 but you're not going to get any information back. Overexposing digital files is stupid, when in doubt push the histogram to the left.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:It's very, very rare that I get an exposure where the highlight data is truly lost. I often have to crop heavily and shoot at less than ideal ISOs so preserving the best possible RAW image is very, very important if I am going to get a decent print from it. I understand the histogram on the camera isn't totally accurate, it just seems weird to blow highlight detail you can't get back because you want to avoid bumping up the exposure less than a quarter of a stop. I mean if you can't sacrifice that miniscule amount of noise then whatever works I guess. When I digital tech I set the exposure warning to 250 and never let anything get above that because otherwise the file is unusable. This is total bullshit though no offense: wankle posted:The +2 image will almost always give you more usable results Please post a file you overexposed by 2 stops and then gave you "usable" results, because blowing highlights even 1/3rd of a stop is unacceptable if you are going to use the file for anything other than your own personal enjoyment. I have hard time even imagining an image one stop overexposed that isn't totally hosed. brad industry fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Oct 10, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 02:42
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:You gotta remember most of us shoot with regular DSLRs and can't set the exposure warning to a particular value. I was talking about in Capture One, I don't think there are any cameras that let you set it (are there? because that would be sweet). I'm curious as to what the histogram on the original RAW file looked like. I mean I read your link, I understand why it works in your situation it just seems like a really limited application. The best rule of thumb is to underexpose, it's like slide film. I think even if that situation came up on set it would still be my preference to underexpose, bump it up, and deal with the noise later rather than risk losing highlight information. Like I said, even going a tiny bit over is basically kiss of death for files that need to be sent to press. tl;dr I never touch cameras that aren't on ISO 100 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 03:10
|
|
|
^ Yeah, speaking of bad digital practices....Clayton Bigsby posted:edit: as for setting alerts, don't some of the MF digital backs let you set alerts for highlight/shadow clipping where it'll actually beep at you? I think this is an option somewhere deep within the labyrinth of the H2/H3 body menus, but I've never worked with digital MF where we weren't shooting tethered and it's easier to set it up in C1. But yeah, basically for jobs there is way too much at stake to risk having an unprintable/unusable file because you blew highlights for no reason. Noise can be dealt with, underexposed shadows are easy to bring up and the noise is usually negligible, but hosed up highlights are basically gone no matter what "Highlight Recovery" does. The best practice in the vast majority of situations for handling digital files is to underexpose (or just get it right to begin with). Regularly overexposing is not a good habit to get into unless you have a good reason. Clayton Bigsby posted:My "it isn't worth it" is noisy results with lovely shadows, but to each their own. Yeah but if you were sending them to a stock agency or something they would be rejected. A lot of commercial printing poo poo has higher tolerances than what looks good coming off an inkjet or what a lab can work with.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 04:08
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Yes, I am sure a 16 bit tiff with all the shadow and highlight detail you want would be rejected because the loving histogram of a JPEG created by in-camera processing of a RAW showed lost highlights. You are really not understanding, nor do I believe you are submitting RAW images to your agencies. But hey, what do I know, maybe getty would reject a nicely processed shot that showed blinkies on the in-camera LCD. You'd be surprised at what they reject for what reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 05:25
|
|
|
Slides were printed with a process called dye sublimation which no longer exists. Processing slide film is slightly more complicated than C-41, I think it involves 2 extra chemical steps, that plus low demand is why so few labs do it now. Shooting wise it's the opposite of a negative (obviously). On negative film the darkest black is just clear film base so if you underexpose there's nothing in your shadows. For slide film the highlights are the thin areas, so if you overexpose you lose highlight detail because there's nothing there on the film, it's just clear. edit: Actually you can still print slides onto Polaroids. I forgot what the enlargers that do that are called. brad industry fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Oct 12, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
I use a Huey Pro, ~$70ish. It works just as well as any other I've used.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2009 22:22
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Any recommendations on how to shoot corporate yet casual (is there such a thing) staff photos? I would do a pre-light the day before, get something set up that's pretty general but will work consistently for a lot of different kind of people (you don't want to have to move lights around for people who wear glasses or you know...  ).As far as "corporate yet casual" you're on your own. If someone asked me to do that I would try to get them to clarify that in more meaningful terms. ie "What story do you want to tell?"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2009 05:02
|
|
|
Captain Hair posted:I need some advice on getting better pictures of quite specific objects. For glass stuff it's usually better to light the background behind it than to light the actual object. Then the light shines through the glass. You can add definition to edges by using black cards.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2009 19:56
|
|
|
HPL posted:Shoot film. It's the easiest way to get good B&W. This, or.... the "click tonal area and drag to adjust curve" thingie in LR/PS is pretty awesome for B&W.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2009 19:55
|
|
|
The flash will freeze it whether it's moving or not. If it's dark and you're using a high f/stop for the flash that would work pretty well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2009 21:09
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:this might sound strange, but I'm making a greyscale zone card for myself.. Yes that's going to be a pretty major problem because of reciprocity failure at the longer shutter speeds.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2009 19:08
|
|
|
What about shoot a roll of images that focuses on each of the elements and principles of design? http://www.wiu.edu/art/courses/design/intro.htm ie. shoot one that shows texture, one for repetition, one for symmetry, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2009 19:03
|
|
|
Z posted:I'm quoting this like twelve pages later just to say that I tried to watch one of his critique videos and literally had to shut it off after about a minute. I don't think I've ever made it through an entire one of those videos. They could condense it down to like a minute or two, instead it's half an hour of him and his wife trying to be cute and funny, which they are not. It's like 95% rambling. None of their critiques are particularly insightful either, they pick these people who's work is all over the place and then go "your work is all over the place". I know it's because of the economy, but I am really sick of all these people - most of whom have unremarkable work - who have somehow managed to develop these massive followings of desperate amateurs that they sell overpriced workshops and DVDs and poo poo too to make up for their lack of work. All the social media and Web 2.0 stuff has amplified it to the point where I want to punch all of them in the face. I seriously get like 3-5 emails a week from these loving fuddie duddie guys old enough to be my grandparent about their "$ECRET$ TO $UCCE$$: TWITTER & THE SOCIAL MEDIA REVOLUTION!!!!" seminars. They all think they're on the cutting edge, but they all sound like a cross between a used car salesman and a Nigerian scammer. If these people spent half as much time shooting and making new work as they did writing blog posts and lovingly perfecting their precious tweets maybe they wouldn't have to teach amateurs how to set up a seamless to pay their rent. There's like a million of them, I don't know how I get on their goddamn mailing lists.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2009 03:19
|
|
|
Sorry that little rant wasn't really directed at Chase Jarvis (I like his iPhone app - oh sorry I mean PHOTO ECOSYSTEM). But when was the last time he actually twittered or blogged his own drat work? It's all socialmediatwittercrowdsourcemyspacecontestseo stuff and I'm just tired of hearing about it. It's not really him that's that bugs me, it's the half a dozen LEARN THE SECRETS OF SOME PHOTOGRAPHER YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ONLY $300 PER SEMINAR emails I get a week.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2009 07:12
|
|
|
evensevenone posted:Ansel Adams did seminars and wrote books! Yes but Ansel invented the zone system, probably the most important technical development in the history of photography. It's also fairly complicated so you actually need books and poo poo to wrap your head around it. He was also one of the most important advocates for photography, and did more for the medium than anyone before or since. These middle aged guys who just discovered the internet and feel the need to spam me about Twitter aren't really on the same level.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2009 21:28
|
|
|
gib posted:Why are ColorChecker charts so damned expensive ($60+)? Is there an almost-as-good but way cheaper alternative? They're expensive because each square is really, really exact which is the point - they're a known value. I'm not aware of any cheaper alternatives. You could just shoot a gray card or a 3 step gray chip which aren't that bad, and do basically the same thing. brad industry fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Nov 24, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2009 05:33
|
|
|
Genuine Fractals and print it at 150, it'll be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2009 20:37
|
|
|
SKULE123 posted:Question re: color calibration. Are all color calibrators created relatively equal, or is there a big brand advantage I don't know about? They all work the same.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2009 17:57
|
|
|
Try googling for a syllabus, lots of colleges put that stuff online. I pulled up a few searching "intro to photo 101 syllabus".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2009 22:27
|
|
|
Chim posted:hmm. Maybe my monitor is too bright. I'm sorry if you guys have already answered this question numerous times, but is there a specific monitor calibration tool/ program that you guys recommend? I'm calibrated I see the banding pretty obviously. I would maybe just patch tool out the more obvious lines. I doubt most of that would show up in a print. Other than that I'm not sure what you can do about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2009 20:56
|
|
|
psylent posted:I'm getting sick of waiting for Lightroom to render my RAW files. I'm running a 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM, what should I be looking at upgrading to increase Lightroom's speed? How many photos do you process at once, because I have this exact same set up and it's pretty speedy. Alternatively, take up smoking.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 03:49
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Probably ben asked a thousand times already, but im getting an imac on monday (oh god cant wait) and dont know whether to go with what i know and get lightroom or try aperture. Aperture locks up your metadata and rating and poo poo in it's proprietary database so you should use LR.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
notlodar posted:There is usually more detail in the shadows in RAW files, so as a general rule, exposing for highlights is better. I've heard this too and I think there's some evidence it works in some situations, but IMO as someone who works as a digital technician on shoots this is a really terrible idea. You can bring out several stops worth of detail out of underexposed shadows and it'll be fine, but clipped highlights are loving gone. If we clip highlights even a little bit on a shoot we bracket to comp in later and don't even touch the highlight recovery because it's unacceptable for production/print. It might be ok if you're posting low res poo poo on the web but it's a bad habit to get into. General rule is to treat digital like slide film and veer on the side of underexposing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2010 21:26
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Perhaps it was the reading list posted by the A Photo Student blog? I can't remember who compiled this, but here's a RAR of all the PDFs from those links: http://rapidshare.com/files/324614737/Photography_Reading.rar.html
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
It's the SVA MFA Photo reading list so yeah it's a lot of critical theory and poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2010 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:hey peoples looking for schooling. I found this http://photohistory.jeffcurto.com/ its a college class that is also a podcast for freezies. I've listened to the first three clases from Fall 09 to make sure its not terrible. I've been learning alot so far because I have zero knowledge of the history of art or photography. The professor seems to be pretty organized and is an easy listen. It feels very much like a typical survey intro course, so his jokes tend to be pretty cheesy. This sounds sweet, thanks for posting.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2010 06:16
|
|