|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Well, after I processed it and had a file that retained all the details I wanted, why bother keeping the RAW? I'm sure there are people clambering over each other to buy your opus "Seagull at the Beach"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 05:08
|
|
|
Read a book about photography and go visit your local art gallery. edit: really the book and exhibit dont even have to be about photography they could just be about art
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2010 02:35
|
|
|
I hate to be the one to tell you this but your mother is a ghost.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
There's also free software like the GIMP. Only liars will tell you that it's as good as photoshop but there's a plug in that makes its interface more or less identical to that in PS
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Oop I guess this thread has moved on to people talking about their sweet rigs
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Hey Amazon you can still use amazon glacier for archival type storage and its pretty darn reasonable https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/pricing/ its not meant for if you're like sifting through all your photos all the time but you could keep your high res raws under ice and just low res stuff locally
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
spog posted:Any suggestions for Windows software for performing a test retrieval? i've never done it so i don't know. best practice might be to upload ur photos broken up into separate archives that make sense (events, rolls of film, etc)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
I thought sepia toning was a method for preserving the print or is that apocryphal I will not look this up before posting
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
I find that explanation to be fairly dreary. John Mayer is a virtuoso by all accounts but his music is also extremely boring. You can only know three chords and write a beautiful song. Conversely you may be an expert at twiddling camera knobs but it's never going to matter much if it's not pointed at anything interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
Health Services posted:You can't be a good musician if you keep fumbling the fingerings and are unable to keep the beat--at any level. It's not a question of being an expert at 'twiddling camera knobs', it's a question of being able to deliberately produce the results you want, whether it's the equivalent of a 3-chord song or something more complex (which is certainly not necessarily better). I essentially agree with you and didn't mean to argue against the point you were making as such. I just meant to add that technique doesn't amount to much without good purpose. For sure being a gear head is a weird style of consumerist mania that is separate from knowing the technical concepts of photography. That said I feel like it's just as easy and nearly as odious to become overly fixated on seeking some false technical idyll. When you are just starting out you have to learn all this stuff and it's good to take it piece by piece. I just notice that often there is a lot of talk about gear/technique but leaving out what photography is really about.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2020 11:03
|
|
|
The rhodo garden is great as mentioned above and the riverfront park nearby there (by the amusement park and Ross island) is quite nice. I'd also check out Mount Tabor for some nice views
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
depends a lot about what you are into. you can try looking at the websites for big museums and galleries as they may have their collections online. smaller ones will at least list their exhibitions which you can do some googling to find more from thee artists if something seems interesting. then of course there is the murky world of blogs and magazines where you can discover a lot of great stuff but generally out of context and also a bunch of trendy junk. if you have a local photography gallery or art schoool you might look into that as well to see what people near you are doing
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
For pure photography the photographer must first eliminate the self
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
dare i recommend buying a disposable film point shoot and seeing how you like that
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
my buddy asked me about scanners the other day. i have a flatbed for the various formats i shoot but he only does 35mm and thats all he aspires to. i thought a dedicated 35mm scanner might be a good choice for him but it seems like theres lots of options and i dont know whats good and whats junk. i did a quick search and couldnt find anything specific - can anyone steer me towards a recomendation? i promise i wont pretend i came up with it myself later when i talk to him
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
ty he was not glad to hear the price but thats what photographys all about baby!!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2021 02:39
|
|
|
for ur digital stuff u could get some black and white filters for ur lenses and practice with those and desaturating as u like later. this goes against the conventional wisdom of shoot raw and process the way u want later but it will force you to think differently about your photos and isnt too expensive as a start also if u have lenses for ur film camera that u can use them with too thats a bonus
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
im guessing the point is less about exposure and more about whatever detail you might not want to see in the background Its not helpful advice im sure and ive never really done product shots but i assume like everything sometimes you may want deeper focus and sometimes you may want it more narrow and figuring that out requires practice and experimentation ! Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Dec 6, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Did they mean film negatives rather than slide? If so I find that more plausible. I had a hard time finding labs that would do e6 in London and ultimately had to send my exposed slide out by mail
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2022 11:17
|
|
|
Also hate to be that guy and I know this kind of thing never leads in a productive direction but I take issue with the language about one medium being "sub-optimal" or producing "better" images than an other. You're talking about lizard brain and hipster brained crap but what is it about greater resolution and more information rich data structures that makes any image "better" than an other who cares about that crap
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2022 11:26
|
|
|
Learn how to use tools to make interesting photos why does it matter if you started a fire with a lighter or a laser beam
Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 11:32 on May 21, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2022 11:28
|
|
|
I know what you meant by better but my point is that it's not better unless that's what you want to do or need to do to make the photo you want. I think it's great that people have all that stuff available to them. It sounds like you are coming from a more industrial point of view and that's fine by me - it makes a lot of sense that you would find modern technology easier to work with. I'm just tired of hearing that traditional techniques are only good for the feels or for being trendy. It's clear that you appreciate the qualitative value of film in cinema so why the disconnect in still photography? It might have been easier to make those films if they had new digital technology but they would have looked different. The new horizons for work and workflow afforded by technology are great too but I think that there's still more work to be done with the old stuff.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
I'm a little dumb founded by this it definitely makes sense to use digital in any situation where you want to do it that way. All I'm trying to say is that while film can be simulated, it still can't be replaced when it comes to the appearance final image. I don't really see why this is controversial? Nobody tries to argue with painters that they should be doing all their work on tablets now? (Or maybe they do, I'm not a painter)
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
It is literally and exactly the point that I've already made. Film and digital are two different ways of doing the same thing (capturing light to make images) and one is not better than the other but, in fact they are different and each has its value depending on your purposes. Incredible
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2022 06:21
|
|
|
To reiterate it is literally only the language of the OP that I took issue with. Photography is my hobby but I take it seriously. Talking like the choice of using film is only good as a nostalgic toy is just wrong. The process, output, and potential is different!
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2022 06:34
|
|
|
All that video shows is how film and digital can be used to make something that looks the same which to me is incredibly boring and pointless
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2022 07:06
|
|
|
I'm only trying to advocate more thoughtful discourse. Thinking differently about photography is not a bad thing! You are welcome to ignore me but I thought there was purpose to our discussion
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2022 09:03
|
|
|
Don't yuck my yum pal or I'll make 300 more posts about the parallel evolution of sensors and emulsion. I'll write a thesis about mixed media exposures using grains of rice soaked in chemistry. Unfortunately for you I love to think about photography and will continue to share my thoughts until death grips me or the mods throw me posting jail
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2022 09:20
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:so basically, you're saying the main value of film is entirely external to the end product? I can totally understand having fun doing at-home chemistry, there's a lot of fun and interesting experimentation you can do fiddling around with darkroom chemicals and different exposures, and it's a heck of a lot more tactile to develop the film yourself. No I believe that there are visual effects that can easily be achieved with conventional film photography that still can't be replicated digitally. That may not always be the case. But, In addition, I believe that there is creative potential to working with the material of traditional photography (perhaps beyond conventional usage) that would never be possible to replicate digitally. In addition I believe that the process is inspirational in ways that are different from the ways a digital process is. It allows for the information of a greater creative vision. I see no tension in the idea of the two processes intermingling or working off in separate directions. I find tension in the notion that one must supersede the other.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2022 09:36
|
|
|
please also apologise to me and my friends the hipsters of whom i am not one
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2022 08:56
|
|
|
using a different tool which forces you to take photos in a different can certainly be inspiring but so can just trying to take photos differently with your existing equipment or reading about photography or looking at art or any number of other things that are free
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2022 11:57
|
|
|
rear end in a top hat or no a cool pic is a cool pic and its not like ur really hurting anyone (usually)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
drat I didn't know that was the point
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
https://www.bitchute.com/video/OkQQggPH6a9B/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 12:22
|
|
|
i hope we can finally resolve the dialectic between makes good art and rear end in a top hat in this thread
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 12:35
|
|
|
no one is going to care either way
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
like u seem fine with using people as props if its candid so what is your argument really. somehow you seem to be saying that bothering other people is pretentious - perhaps u should think more kindly about urself 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2023 16:27
|
|