|
 https://www.instagram.com/p/Cztg-ezvnCM (sniping your wallet)
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
echinopsis posted:sorry but the vibe is sick Shoot HDR then. You won't get a good exposure of your subject and your background when your background is multiple times brighter than your subject. You have to pick one or the other or mask and edit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 21:38
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:sorry but the vibe is sick you need to either bracket hdr then or get a reflector to front-light your subjects using the background light
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:
i saw a soviet spy camera in a museum (i don't remember which, but it was in manhattan, so not the spy museum in dc) that was kinda like this. it was some crazy long lens mounted onto basically a sniper rifle body no idea what it was called but it was pretty neat
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 21:43
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:i saw a soviet spy camera in a museum (i don't remember which, but it was in manhattan, so not the spy museum in dc) that was kinda like this. it was some crazy long lens mounted onto basically a sniper rifle body NoneMoreNegative posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 21:55
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:yeah for sure, that’s kinda how I’ve ended up in the scenario that lead me to post about it portraits like that taken against a strong backlight always come out kind of dull and flat because there's nothing to illuminate the face, and trying to increase the shadows in post is not going to get you anywhere. there is simply no contrast to play with. imo you should get a simple reflector and it will do wonders  
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
i think echi likes the dull look though i mean, it is certainly a look, but most photographers will tell you your subject is lit wrong
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
i wanted to get into photography at one point. the gear all looks really cool and having all the different lenses and understanding photo composition sounds really neat but then i remembered i don't want to photograph any of the poo poo around me other than my cats, and my phone does a decent enough job of that
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 22:30
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 22:31
|
|
|
showing up with just a camera vs. showing up with a camera plus a few light modifiers (and pretending you know how to set them up) really makes people feel like you are a Serious Photographer that knows what they're doing. and if you want to capture something truly representative of real life, they have no reason to hire you. and I am assuming echi wants to get hired for portraits this is a dece book https://www.amazon.com/Shooting-tty-Light-Photography-Situations/dp/0321862694 polyester concept fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jan 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 22:34
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:i think echi likes the dull look though idk I generally just like things to look as they are like, when you’re outside at blue hour, it is flat, but you don’t meet people complaining about the lack of contrast when they’re talking to you polyester concept posted:portraits like that taken against a strong backlight always come out kind of dull and flat because there's nothing to illuminate the face quote:see i’m not convinced I prefer the look on the right. I can see why someone would want it and see how it ticks more boxes, but tbh I prefer the contrast between the lit hair and the face rather than the face itself. it’d be one thing if you could do it and you couldn’t tell it was additional lighting, because that “added” lighting is jarring rick rubin the famous photographer came to me in a dream and told me that I just gotta do poo poo for myself, and it’ll either resonate with people or it won’t, but it’s true to me, and it means I can look at my own work with a sense of pride, because I genuinely do like a lot of my own work. there might be a time where I feel that yeah, a few reflectors would be beneficial, but it’ll have to come from an internal change in my taste the information and criticism of others can help grow and change that taste over time, but only if it resonates with me. polyester concept posted:and if you want to capture something truly representative of real life, they have no reason to hire you. and I am assuming echi wants to get hired for portraits I used to think I wanted that but idk I think I’ve gone off the idea. if it happens it happens, but I’m not really to keen to start doing stuff I don’t wanna really do
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 23:19
|
|
|
I shot from 8:15 till 9:15 literally amateur hour
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 23:19
|
|
|
Branch Nvidian posted:i wanted to get into photography at one point. the gear all looks really cool and having all the different lenses and understanding photo composition sounds really neat but then i remembered i don't want to photograph any of the poo poo around me other than my cats, and my phone does a decent enough job of that whoa whoa whoa with the cool gear, you can stage very serious portrait sessions with your cats, tho
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 23:28
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:rick rubin the famous photographer came to me in a dream and told me that I just gotta do poo poo for myself, and it’ll either resonate with people or it won’t, but it’s true to me, and it means I can look at my own work with a sense of pride, because I genuinely do like a lot of my own work. My dude you come in here and post "I have problem" then everyone says "here's the ways you can fix the problem" and you reply "No, actually, I like the way my stuff looks thanks bye" and it's infuriating. You have defiant opposition to good advice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 23:31
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:maybe I just need a better 85 Also, this is a physics problem not a lens problem. A wider lens sees more of its own imperfections, soft corners wide open is expected and lived with and the solution is stopping down. There's no magic any lens that's going to be sharp across the entire field without stopping down. Learn to use the gear you have effectively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 23:33
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I can see why someone would want it and see how it ticks more boxes, but tbh I prefer the contrast between the lit hair and the face rather than the face itself. it’d be one thing if you could do it and you couldn’t tell it was additional lighting, because that “added” lighting is jarring you can definitely overdo it and end up making your subject look like they were poorly photoshopped into the scene. like they say with any kind of special effects, the best ones are those you don't even notice. i was just trying to say, if you are struggling in lightroom to get the balance you want, it might help to set yourself up with more "working room" during the shoot. you can always lower the contrast later, but it's difficult to add when everything is already in shadows. the photo you posted has a cinematic feel to it, like it was taken as a still from a movie. It reminds me of something I do sometimes, which is I will pause a movie during a scene I find visually appealing and I think to myself "if this was a photo I took, I would say it's under exposed". But since it is in a film, it works, because films are more often supposed to be representative of real scenes* you should try taking wider shots and cropping them at 16:9 just for fun and see how it strikes you *depending on the genre of course
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2024 23:45
|
|
|
Megabound posted:My dude you come in here and post "I have problem" then everyone says "here's the ways you can fix the problem" and you reply "No, actually, I like the way my stuff looks thanks bye" and it's infuriating. You have defiant opposition to good advice. I didn’t say I had a problem, I can vaguely see how you might have thought that, but I hoped I was also indicating that I am actually quite content with a photo that is “underexposed”, if it actually reflects how things looked in real life. it’s not a problem to correct, I was just thinking out loud about the method I’ve settled on vs the “correct” one. it’s still an interesting discussion and there’s things in here I hadn’t considered before Megabound posted:Also, this is a physics problem not a lens problem. A wider lens sees more of its own imperfections, I had not considered this, cheers polyester concept posted:
quote:the photo you posted has a cinematic feel to it, like it was taken as a still from a movie. It reminds me of something I do sometimes, which is I will pause a movie during a scene I find visually appealing and I think to myself "if this was a photo I took, I would say it's under exposed". But since it is in a film, it works, because films are more often supposed to be representative of real scenes* interesting perspective, thankyou.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 00:02
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:you can definitely overdo it and end up making your subject look like they were poorly photoshopped into the scene. like they say with any kind of special effects, the best ones are those you don't even notice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 00:09
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:sorry but the vibe is sick
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 00:21
|
|
|
cross posting a thought I had from the tech thread since there was a photography derail. I wish I had the guts to be able to take street photos like this guy. though I feel like there would be a lot more angry people to deal with these days. I dunno, maybe I am wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 00:22
|
|
|
lighting can be extremely complex with a ton of sodium vapor lamps and a programmable control board or some poo poo or it can be extremely simple, like just using a reflector. the only bad lighting is not using what you have effectively, which can manifest in an overly-lit fake looking scene or a really flat, low-contrast one, or anything in between like with most pieces of advice i've dropped itt, i think the best thing to do is to experiment with it and see what works for you. but that also means trying it Megabound posted:My dude you come in here and post "I have problem" then everyone says "here's the ways you can fix the problem" and you reply "No, actually, I like the way my stuff looks thanks bye" and it's infuriating. You have defiant opposition to good advice. i don't mean to pile on echi, but it does feel like this sometimes, a lot of people have offered him very good advice that he almost always just ignores in favor of "nah, i like my way better". which, to be clear, is fine however, i still think echi should be more open to trying different things. just because you tried something once and didn't get, like, master of domain level results, doesn't mean it didn't work, or that it was bad advice. usually it just means you should try again, probably while also shooting in the way you're most comfortable with, if only just so you have a basis for comparison again, i don't mean to pile on echi, and i do agree with polyester concept here polyester concept posted:the photo you posted has a cinematic feel to it, like it was taken as a still from a movie. It reminds me of something I do sometimes, which is I will pause a movie during a scene I find visually appealing and I think to myself "if this was a photo I took, I would say it's under exposed". But since it is in a film, it works, because films are more often supposed to be representative of real scenes* there's something to be said for striving for a realistic look; i do that a lot with my own shots. sometimes i strike gold with it, sometimes i have to go in a different direction because of shooting conditions, sometimes it's just not appropriate, or sometimes something else just looks better but there's a difference between something looking realistic and just snapping away, throwing up your hands and saying "well, that's what it looked like at the time, so..." we're living in an era of an absolutely ridiculous amount of digital editing options that offer better quality than anything that's been released previously. there's probably hundreds of ways of making your shot look like whatever you want it to but if like, 9 out of 10 people (with a trained eye for this kind of thing, mind you) say that a result doesn't look quite right, then perhaps maybe it doesn't
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:cross posting a thought I had from the tech thread since there was a photography derail. I wish I had the guts to be able to take street photos like this guy. though I feel like there would be a lot more angry people to deal with these days. I dunno, maybe I am wrong this made today would be a 3 minute video called "I got beat up and my leica got stolen"
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 00:28
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:cross posting a thought I had from the tech thread since there was a photography derail. I wish I had the guts to be able to take street photos like this guy. though I feel like there would be a lot more angry people to deal with these days. I dunno, maybe I am wrong qirex posted:this made today would be a 3 minute video called "I got beat up and my leica got stolen" Gilden is still active today and while his photography style is interesting I find his project choice to be problematic, especially his current work: https://www.brucegilden.com/waist-up-portraits Compare that to Dougie Wallace who uses a similar technique but to punch up instead: http://www.dougiewallace.com/harrodsburg
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
yikes, yeah I don't actually follow any "famous" photographers or pay attention to their body of work at all. I just come across things now and then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 00:35
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:cross posting a thought I had from the tech thread since there was a photography derail. I wish I had the guts to be able to take street photos like this guy. though I feel like there would be a lot more angry people to deal with these days. I dunno, maybe I am wrong people in nyc are usually receptive to street photographers, as long as you ask first
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 00:40
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:yikes, yeah
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 00:41
|
|
|
oh, also yeah this was it. pretty cool
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:yikes, yeah I don't actually follow any "famous" photographers or pay attention to their body of work at all. I just come across things now and then. Check out: Martin Parr Chris Shaw Lee Friedlander Fan Ho Thomas Sauvin Jason Eskanazi Trent Parke Chris Verene Greg Girard There's so many really great photographers out there to explore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 01:05
|
|
|
I would love a fan ho book that wasn't a million dollars
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 01:08
|
|
|
That's the dream, I also want a copy of Minutes to Midnight that's also not one billionty
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 01:08
|
|
|
Megabound posted:
thanks, I will check those out I actually lied a little I guess, I came across a greg girard account on instagram a while ago, and I've been following it. Extremely good poo poo. Love his stuff from Kowloon Walled City
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 01:23
|
|
|
Girard is like a gateway drug. City of Darkness drags everyone in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 01:28
|
|
|
realized i am replying to myself but addressing echi. sorry for the ambiguous “you”!nurrwick posted: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. looked up my lens metadata finally: 16-45 - 211 43 - 154 10-17 fisheye - 135 14 - 127 77 - 80 aps-c, so the equivalents are about 24-70, 65, fisheye zoom who cares, 21, and 115. the 43 got me candid portraiture, the 77 served as as a long-portrait, and the wide stuff was great for the tables and dance floor. i ended up taking about a third total of the number of shots for the other wedding i did. i didn’t end up needing any true ultrawide for that venue and schedule, and there was a smaller guest list, so that tracks. it sounded like you were ready to give up for not having the right gear but you can definitely rent a lens if this is a project you actually want to do. you’re comfortable with your 135 and i bet if you run your 85 one stop down, you’d be okay with its output… just need something to cover the wide and normal, and if you don’t have any preconceived notions about bow those lenses are supposed to feel or work for you, nothing to lose by not shooting fixed-focals. i love my limiteds, but i could have spent more time shooting with a spare body and a 70-200-class /2.8 or /4. nurrwick fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Jan 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 04:54
|
|
|
nurrwick posted:looked up my lens metadata finally: this is interesting thanks as time goes on I am questioning myself on this more and more, whether or not I think it's even worth taking the dive. I think I'd be a good second photographer rather than primary. I've got a sigma 35mm f/1.4 which is decent enough quality wise. and a couple 50s which can be OK not great. I arguably can cover most bases with what I have, but swapping around would be a bitch. a second body would be a boon. OR a zoom lens. I have to accept for most of the photos trying to capture the wedding (rather than bride & groom) that I'd be stopped down anyway, so zoom would be fine. itd be like 150 to rent a rf 24-70 f.2.8 which looks like a nice lens but also 4grand kiwibucks to buy wtf
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2024 23:45
|
|
|
what do they expect from you echi? i shot a wedding for friends and it was extremely low key but they didn’t care much about photos in the first place which is why they asked a friend to do it and paid him in burritos
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 02:29
|
|
|
I have yet to have the sit down and go over that so right now don’t have much of an idea. i have actually taken photos at my brothers wedding but that was soooo casual, the groomsmen wore shorts and it was just a massive piss up lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 03:09
|
|
|
I've just started shooting Polaroid in an SX-70 I got 600 modded and boy do I really like it.     
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 22:56
|
|
|
before I cancelled sub for format.com my website hosting I was spending about $25 a month between that and lightroom, just to never make a dime it was better when I didn’t pay for it
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 21:43
|
|
|
Megabound posted:I've just started shooting Polaroid in an SX-70 I got 600 modded and boy do I really like it. yo this is rad as hell and I had no idea SX-70 cameras were compatible with 600 film through a mod. I have the original rainbow one step but it sucks because SX-70 film seems harder to find and the low ISO means I can only really use it outdoors on sunny days. I may have to mod mine (I looked up the process, seems like you just gotta replace a capacitor that controls the shutter speed). I wonder if I could rig something with a switch so I could easily swap between both settings. I wonder this because very recently i was at a thrift store and found an aftermarket AA-powered flash for the one step (called the nissin FIP II) so I don't have to find flash cubes, and it works really well. but my understanding is that when the flash is attached, the camera will always use a fixed shutter speed, and if I am using 600 film it would result in way over exposed photos. I would like to retain the ability to use SX-70 film and the flash if I ever do come across any polyester concept fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Feb 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
i found an older tokina 150-500mm 5.6 (constant aperture  ) at a thrift store for $65 so of course I bought it. it’s FD mount and I already have the adapter for my mirrorless. this is gonna be fun to play with (not my pic but this is it lol) polyester concept fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Feb 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2024 18:20
|
|