Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
I rock my 200mm to compensate for the [PHOTO]
Posts
So how is that gig going? Any interesting stories, insight, or photos you can show us?
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Great. I was really lucky/persistent, and managed to work my way up to first assistant pretty quickly (I started in May). Is there anything specific you want to know about? It's really fun but very hard work. Probably the best thing I've done so far was go on safari for a shoot down in South Africa.
Sure, most drug store brands are rebadged from major film manufacturers like Kodak and Fuji. It's typically the remnants of older consumer emulsions like Kodak Gold. Of course, knowing what you're getting is kind of a guessing game at times. If you use a film and find that you really like the results you might want to buy several rolls.
These films usually give a very "film" look. Typically fairly grainy, filmy colors, etc.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Everything, I want to know everything. Could you tell us who you are working for and what you do as a first assistant? Any interesting shoots you've done or anything that you've learned in the process about professional photography, fashion shoots, etc.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
It's a better window than it is a photo.
@basalmic: that photo looks like it has a blue-ish tinge to it. I'm not sure if htat is the glass work itself or a white balance issue.
@siegried: those photos are pretty mundane IMO. Maybe you should try and find a variety of subjects to shoot. On a technical level the blacks look muddy / not black.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
The problem I'm running into with film is that it's expensive. Or rather, a continuing expense. In reality I've spent probably in excess of $800 on my digital camera, lenses, and accessories, but that somehow feels a whole lot less expensive than having to pay per image. At least if I spend 30$ on my GF2 I know I'm adding to my capabilities. It's making me really hesitant to use the PEN-EE3 for anything, even though I need to get more practice in to understand metering and such.
Just in case anyone finds it interesting, my camera expenditures:
fd-M43 adapter--20$
Canon FD 50mm 1.8- 15$
Canon FL 50mm 1.4-40$
Soligor 28mm 2.8-18$
JcPenney 35mm-105mm 3.5 -20$
8gb and 16gb SD cards -35$
some spare lens caps -10$
PEN-ee3 -30$
Kodak film, 2 rolls -20$
CVS film, 2 rolls -7$
developing/print costs-50$
Now granted, I'm getting like 70 pictures a roll, but it still feels prohibitive to use the film camera unless I'm very confident my results are going to be worth it. I rather like getting prints, but would it be possible/cheaper to just get negatives and scan them myself? Can I get usable files out of that, or will they just be tiny?
Sushil #1 by hazmato, on Flickr
Sushil #2 by hazmato, on Flickr
My PEN.
_1090225 by hazmato, on Flickr
Those are brutal film costs. Are you in the US? Maybe it's time to start looking at developing yourself. I use Tetenal/Jobo kits to process C41 at home. $20 for a 1 liter kit and I get 10 rolls +, so <$2 per roll. Black and white is even less if you use HC-110 or Rodinol.
Check out freestylephoto.biz.
Also, I develop and scan all of my photos FWIW. I don't use anything fancy, just a Canoscan 8800f. Anything that I want to print beyond an 8x10 I either wet print (BW) or send out for a better scan. The Canoscan is pretty excellent for proofing, but you're probably going to have a tough time with 1/2 frames from the pen, as I'm usually fairly lukewarm on the results I get from 35mm.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
That's the worst social faux pas. Because I like to take photos and have a DSLR (nothing fancy,), so that would put me one rank above people with a point-n-shoot taking holiday pictures, but I don't take a lot of photos, let alone good ones, so that puts me several ranks below amateur photographers who shoot daily/have a D5 or something, but then there's also professional photographers who do it for a living and photographers who make art and I suppose they're the highest rank of photographers? So when someone says "they're a photographer too" then all they're saying is that they are in the possession of a camera.
Free MMO Überlist
Yeah, I couldn't do portrait work... I don't like people to begin with
Nintendo ID: Beltaine
3DS: 2423-2361-7857
Steam: beltane77 PSN: Beltaine-77
_DSC9516 by YorkerPA, on Flickr
My favourite shot from last month, originally it was a bit higher contrast but I wanted to preserve more of the details.
I used to feel that way quite a bit when browsing around through awesome photos. After a while I just came to accept the fact that most collections of beautiful photos are whittled down from a HUGE number of photos. I'm not trying to be a professional photographer so there is no way that I will be able to compete with them in terms of quality since they are shooting nearly every day and I'm shooting pretty infrequently. I just try and make my photos better than the last set I came out with. Learn from those amazing photos on the web but don't get discouraged when mine aren't at the same level.
Hell, I would be happy if I could consistently do portraiture and PSsing as well as needOptic does.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So I rely on some photography knowledge, some good tips for framing and composition, and try to get it right when I take the actual picture. I'm happy with people saying "You have some nice pictures," without wowwing them. Especially since it seems that to really wow most people, all you need to do is oversaturate everything and do some selective color replacement ;D
For me I usually just have to have shallow depth of field.
There's a huge false impression going around in photography and film that says shallow focus = awesome. So much so that I'm starting to associate it with low budget.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/long-exposure-handhelds/introduction.html
got a facebook message from a friend today after uploading some recent shots.
I can't pretend to be pretentious photographer guy and get upset at that, I just happened to have the circumstances that made buying a more expensive camera make sense.
This is your opportunity for extremely snarky answers. Find some really low end p&s camera and say it is that or you could claim it is something like a Polaroid camera with some siiiick modifications.
Alternative snark: Claim some famous photographer like Ansel Adams actually wasn't that good of a photographer, but he had a really awesome camera.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Linked for Hueg.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/12389?size=_original
@Lucky Cynic- the railings in that picture are straight out of those hidden image books. That is a crazy shot.
I realize the ridiculous iron of this, but what kind of camera would be used for that?
Also, Balsamic your Angelopoulos Sig just makes me sad now
Also I would have more room in front of the locust, but unfortunately that's pretty much where the block of plastic its in stops.
And I get what you mean about the top half; I'll play around with it a bit.
@SaintElmosWire It's actually a Tarkovsky sig, but what Angelopoulos does it remind you of? I'll have to check it out.
An 8x10 glass plate coated in photosensitive emulsion, similar to standard 8x10 cut film large format cameras used today.
Edit: If you really feel like looking at that photo a little longer you can see the faint outline of the people that were in the church during that exposure. The exposure was simply so long that they don't fully register as they weren't within the frame for particularly long relative to the length of the exposure.
Check around the pews.
These glass plates had ISO ratings sometimes around... 1.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
http://www.shorpy.com/node/9347?size=_original
Depth of field is pretty much infinite and yet people are stopped pretty well.
Speaking of. How would you advise best making use of low-ISO films? I'm kind of worried I won't be able to shoot anything indoors ever with the PEN, but I'd still like to try, say, Velvia.
Be outside. You'd have a hard time shooting at ISO 50 or 100 indoors even at fast apertures. If you want to shoot indoors without flash then use Portra 400 and push or Portra 800. You'll get best results with BW film like Tri-X pushed up to 3200 or Ilford 3200 pushed up to about 6400.
Obviously, with a tripod it won't matter as much and you'll have far more leeway in your aperture/shutter speed combo for non-moving subjects.
Outdoors you really shouldn't have too much of a problem getting usable EV.
Velvia is best for landscapes imo and not so great for people. It makes skin look like hamburger. Still a really fun film to play with.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Edit: A few more as well
This one particularly is kind of bad, but I want to hear how else I could've edited it to make it a bit better:
Anyway, a couple more photos for criticism:
In other news: my girlfriend took me to a photo studio a couple months ago to show me this guy's gallery. So, "this guy" ended up being Quinn Jacobson, who is one cool dude by the way, and it's pretty awesome to watch him go through the process for wet plates. Not to mention how ancient some of the lenses he uses are, hoping to go back sometime soon. Great photographer and an all around great guy, you can google a lot of his work or go to the website I linked on his name. Definitely worth checking out.