Man, I wish I didn't have to spend $3,000+ for an underwater case for my camera. I guess I could probably rig a box like wakeboarders used to do for their videos. In any case check these photos out of people swimming under waves, pretty incredible. The colors are amazing.
Man, I wish I didn't have to spend $3,000+ for an underwater case for my camera. I guess I could probably rig a box like wakeboarders used to do for their videos. In any case check these photos out of people swimming under waves, pretty incredible. The colors are amazing.
Have you considered shooting film? Nikonos line is ridiculously cheap these days, and while you loose in flexibility, chimping and large number of shots being taken without reloading, you gain possibly the finest dedicated optics designed for underwater photography and a wad of cash left in your pocket.
Man, I wish I didn't have to spend $3,000+ for an underwater case for my camera. I guess I could probably rig a box like wakeboarders used to do for their videos. In any case check these photos out of people swimming under waves, pretty incredible. The colors are amazing.
Have you considered shooting film? Nikonos line is ridiculously cheap these days, and while you loose in flexibility, chimping and large number of shots being taken without reloading, you gain possibly the finest dedicated optics designed for underwater photography and a wad of cash left in your pocket.
Thought had not crossed my mind, but I love shooting film - so I may definitely have to check that out. Thanks Muninn, much much appreciated.
I really find it hard to believe this thread is 3 years old and still hasn't hit 100 yet. Oh well.
So fellow photophiles, I just made a massive purchase, the Epson Stylus Photo R3000. While only a 13" wide printer, it does do borderless and has an awesome inkset for stellar performance with black and white. Having used local printers on and off for 3 years has made me incredibly cynical because I can never get a reprint that looks quite like the old one, or without it costing an arm and a leg. Sure paper and ink will be redonkulous, and I will have to see what I can do to color calibrate everything to make sure things look consistent (Which is what I am terrified most about), but overall I am excited to start printing this shit.
Hopefully by summer I can have a reliable printing workflow down and I can start experimenting with diverse or fine art media. Getting a roll of canvas a go is so exciting.
I really find it hard to believe this thread is 3 years old and still hasn't hit 100 yet. Oh well.
So fellow photophiles, I just made a massive purchase, the Epson Stylus Photo R3000. While only a 13" wide printer, it does do borderless and has an awesome inkset for stellar performance with black and white. Having used local printers on and off for 3 years has made me incredibly cynical because I can never get a reprint that looks quite like the old one, or without it costing an arm and a leg. Sure paper and ink will be redonkulous, and I will have to see what I can do to color calibrate everything to make sure things look consistent (Which is what I am terrified most about), but overall I am excited to start printing this shit.
Hopefully by summer I can have a reliable printing workflow down and I can start experimenting with diverse or fine art media. Getting a roll of canvas a go is so exciting.
Oh wow, that's an amazing purchase. I hope it works out for you. You know, once you get a workflow down you could get some of your costs back by developing photos for others. It sounds like one of those kinds of surfaces that's only becoming rarer as more business go bankrupt.
I haven't looked into photo printers in a long time but I know the early inks had problems holding up to long periods of sunlight. They would end up fading after a year or two. So do some research with regards to that just to make sure you are getting stuff that produces prints that will last.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I haven't looked into photo printers in a long time but I know the early inks had problems holding up to long periods of sunlight. They would end up fading after a year or two. So do some research with regards to that just to make sure you are getting stuff that produces prints that will last.
Oh, there is no doubt I am getting quality. Certain ink and paper combinations have an estimated lifespan of over 200 years. There is a lot of fine art paper available and I may even dabble in canvas.
I have to tell you, a super high resolution file, in Adobe RGB color space, in 16bit, on an 8.5x11 sheet, borderless, black and white... it really doesn't get any better. I really feel like these prints just need a tiny bit sepia toning and they could be mistaken for darkroom wetprints. I really feel like finally, I have gotten to a point where there is this uncanny valley- where the fuji color film paper I used has met its match.
And borderless does something so special. It really makes you feel like you are holding a piece of a larger work. I can't wait to view these test photos under daylight and get a little more personal with them, but they are right now looking like absolute winners and I just got the fucking thing. I can't wait until I have my workflow down to a science, having two or three go-to papers, as well as some nice processing options.
Those are pretty darn nice. Overall I love the color and those are composed pretty nicely compared to most of the generic full car shots I've seen from car shows. I have only two little suggestions.
On image 2013-6 I would crop the right part of the frame so you don't get part of the other window. It is a little distracting and doesn't add anything to the main subject.
On image 2013-10 if you were to do it again I would suggest moving the camera to the right just a tiny bit so the left dial isn't partially obscured by the steering wheel.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So my aunt wanted my wife to paint her a small picture and wanted me to take some head shots for her business. When it came time to discuss payment she said she was willing to pay my wife $X for the painting. I chimed in and told her my usual rate for those type of head shots. She seemed surprised because she was expecting me to do those for free.
This is just another perfect example of how people don't value photography compared to other art forms. *sigh*
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So my aunt wanted my wife to paint her a small picture and wanted me to take some head shots for her business. When it came time to discuss payment she said she was willing to pay my wife $X for the painting. I chimed in and told her my usual rate for those type of head shots. She seemed surprised because she was expecting me to do those for free.
This is just another perfect example of how people don't value photography compared to other art forms. *sigh*
Bah, sorry to hear that man. I'm always shocked at how many people consider photography no big deal. You would think she'd want the best head shots since they will represent her business. You pay for quality and all that. Best of luck though, when it comes to family it just makes explaining much more difficult. Especially since she expected it for free. I suppose you could just show her people's websites who offer head shots and how much they charge.
So my aunt wanted my wife to paint her a small picture and wanted me to take some head shots for her business. When it came time to discuss payment she said she was willing to pay my wife $X for the painting. I chimed in and told her my usual rate for those type of head shots. She seemed surprised because she was expecting me to do those for free.
This is just another perfect example of how people don't value photography compared to other art forms. *sigh*
Bah, sorry to hear that man. I'm always shocked at how many people consider photography no big deal. You would think she'd want the best head shots since they will represent her business. You pay for quality and all that. Best of luck though, when it comes to family it just makes explaining much more difficult. Especially since she expected it for free. I suppose you could just show her people's websites who offer head shots and how much they charge.
Yeah, I told her what most people charge for head shots and I generally charge less because I don't do it often and this was for a family member. She said she hadn't even considered how much it would cost and said she hadn't budgeted for it. I offered to do them for free since she is family and didn't sound like she had the money for both the painting and the head shot, but it still irks me that the thought of paying me didn't even cross her mind.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
It sort of depends on what you were going for here. I'm guessing this wasn't meant as a product shot since you are just showing the back of the watch. Overall I not a giant fan because of the shallow DOF / point of interest. I don't think those two gears are interesting enough as a subject. I would either try and get more of it in focus with a smaller aperture or do some focus stacking. If you wanted a bit more interested maybe you could shoot it again with the watched moved a little to the left and have some gears and small tools laying on the right side as if the watch was being worked on.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Yeah, it looks pretty, but eyes have a hard time finding something to focus on as there's not much drawing me in.
In other news, I ordered a (supposedly) fully functional Nikonos V with some of my left over tax return money. So, we'll see how that goes and I'll post photos once I get the camera... take the pictures... and get the pictures back from being developed.
Yeah, it looks pretty, but eyes have a hard time finding something to focus on as there's not much drawing me in.
In other news, I ordered a (supposedly) fully functional Nikonos V with some of my left over tax return money. So, we'll see how that goes and I'll post photos once I get the camera... take the pictures... and get the pictures back from being developed.
Slowest chimping EVER.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I was going for more of a fine art. I don't even really have a true macro lens so yeah, focus is a little fucked. Plus I was at f2.8 to maintain handhold shutter speeds. Still, its pretty. I've been toying with some sharpening techniques and while I am relatively new to car photography, may I have a critique on A: The processing, and B: the composition and eh, exposure? I think I nailed it save for a shitty background.
Lighting is king when shooting cars (as with any subject really) you need a lot of it for cars though. You need some great overhead light or reflection of a lighter color above the car (tall building, blue sky, cloudy sky). Without some sort of good light you miss the curves/lines of the car, which is what's happening here. You did get some of that on the hood of the car, but the top, front fender and front you can't really tell where the lines of the car are. I've found shooting on partially cloudy or even cloudy days can be really nice because most of us can't afford 10s if not hundreds of thousands of $$ for lighting a car.
Not a bad composition, you had the right idea with using the lines on the ceiling and the parking lines to try and lead the viewer's eyes to the car - however, the parking lines are in a position where they hurt the photo more than help it. If it was a straight on shot with the car between the lines it would have been pretty great. But the lines don't really help the flow of your eyes because they're just hitting the lines of the car perpendicular and not leading your eyes anywhere.
I'll explain a little better later when I get home for you.
Lighting is king when shooting cars (as with any subject really) you need a lot of it for cars though. You need some great overhead light or reflection of a lighter color above the car (tall building, blue sky, cloudy sky). Without some sort of good light you miss the curves/lines of the car, which is what's happening here. You did get some of that on the hood of the car, but the top, front fender and front you can't really tell where the lines of the car are. I've found shooting on partially cloudy or even cloudy days can be really nice because most of us can't afford 10s if not hundreds of thousands of $$ for lighting a car.
Not a bad composition, you had the right idea with using the lines on the ceiling and the parking lines to try and lead the viewer's eyes to the car - however, the parking lines are in a position where they hurt the photo more than help it. If it was a straight on shot with the car between the lines it would have been pretty great. But the lines don't really help the flow of your eyes because they're just hitting the lines of the car perpendicular and not leading your eyes anywhere.
I'll explain a little better later when I get home for you.
I agree with a lot of this. I was also going to say that you lose a lot of the contour of the right side of the car because there is no light on it. The headlights also have such a different color temperature than the light coming from the background that they just look dingy.
@Lucky Cynic
This video shows you how a professional lights a car and then he quickly shows you how to do it with just a single light bulb and a long exposure. If you want to skip to the DIY part go to about 7:30.
I've seen that video a million times and I still think the retouch ruins a great picture. ALL THE CLARITY FOREVER! It's blindingly postprocessed.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of it. It seems like it also has a bit of overdone tone mapping.
Prospicience, I've also seen this done with a long exposure and a flash on a stick. Pretty much same concept except you end up having to photoshop out more copies of the light stand.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Retouching done by someone other than the photographer seems really strange to me for some reason. Especially when it's such a dramatic "retouch". I can see hiring out a pro if I had some rigging I needed removed from shots, but not changing the photo to the extent in that video.
Retouching done by someone other than the photographer seems really strange to me for some reason. Especially when it's such a dramatic "retouch". I can see hiring out a pro if I had some rigging I needed removed from shots, but not changing the photo to the extent in that video.
From my understanding that sort of retouching is pretty standard for professional photography done for ads, magazines, etc. Sometimes they won't send out the image to another company but will instead of an on staff retoucher.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Retouching done by someone other than the photographer seems really strange to me for some reason. Especially when it's such a dramatic "retouch". I can see hiring out a pro if I had some rigging I needed removed from shots, but not changing the photo to the extent in that video.
The photographer provides the base, the retoucher adds the finishing touches. It's a two-man job, and a different way of doing photography. If you are doing it for personal work, then no I can not see the point of a retoucher because you've lost the personal connection to it being "your work. . ." But if this is a professional job (or a personal job you want to look a certain way) it makes sense to do.
Especially when you consider that for professional work like this (product shots, advertising, covers), the request will be "this is the picture, but we need it to look maybe like this. Or like this. Do it 3 ways OK? And stay around for when we say we don't like any of these and want you to do 3 more ways."
Since there are a couple new people posting, I will say that one of the traps a lot of people starting out fall into is that they want to find a scene that is interesting and capture it. They expect serendipity, and often blame their camera or their location if they're not capturing beautiful, interesting images right out of the camera. I think most photographers will admit that being somewhere interesting makes it easier to get started, but it doesn't automatically make your pictures interesting. A car show, as mentioned above, is a good example. There's lots to take pictures of, but most people will step back a bit and get the car in a composition that looks essentially like you're just standing there and looking at a car. Even if you frame it up and position yourself in a way that makes it look like you're doing product photography, there's nothing inherently interesting in an archive-style picture. That's partly why learning your tools is so important, so you understand how depth of field, focusing distance, some basic optics (differences between wide & telephoto), and other elements will affect what you see -- and what a picture will show.
The criticism of my work when I was posting stuff here was that a lot of it was just nice snapshots. A snapshot of an inherently interesting place is nice, but there's not much involved in the craft of that -- the trick is to go to interesting places. The more difficult part, and the part that moves photography into more of an art form, is making a boring thing interesting.
I picked up a used T1i about a year and half ago to get back into photography but it backfired a bit with probably some of the worst autofocus I've used. I was able to do enough with it including some relatives weddings and a convention but it was definitely a barrier to enjoying shooting. I'm also capitalizing on my first new L lens since my 70-200 F4L back in the day.
I suppose I can finally give a couple of my full frame lenses the love they deserve.
Also buying a new gadget in the middle of a busy work week is one way to guarantee it will take forever to get to the weekend.
I picked up a used T1i about a year and half ago to get back into photography but it backfired a bit with probably some of the worst autofocus I've used. I was able to do enough with it including some relatives weddings and a convention but it was definitely a barrier to enjoying shooting. I'm also capitalizing on my first new L lens since my 70-200 F4L back in the day.
I suppose I can finally give a couple of my full frame lenses the love they deserve.
Also buying a new gadget in the middle of a busy work way is one way to guarantee it will take forever to get to the weekend.
Congrats! When I jumped to a D800 because I hate money, it was so nice getting back to that 35mm perspective. It felt like my brain worked right again! My brain working right still doesn't produce great images, but I like them enough for me :P
Being able to jack the ISO to 6400 without much fear is also very satisfying. Makes me feel like a mad scientist compared to the old digital days.
Yeah, shooting on a FF camera is just lovely compared to the crop sensors IMO.
I'm going to be going to Salt Lake City next weekend for a crossfit competition my wife is going to be in and I'm looking for things to photograph. I wish there was a website of "if you are going here then here are cool places to take pictures" with GPS coordinates. Sadly that doesn't seem to exist and if it did it might just mean there would be shit tons of the same picture over and over again. So I'm just kind of resorting to googling and checking out pictures from flickr.
Anyone here happen to have specific suggestions? I'm looking to just shoot nature stuff like the somewhere in the salt flats, somewhere at the lake, maybe the Bingham Copper Mine.
Edit: When I say specific I mean like "Oh, I hear that this bay is a good place to shoot the lake from."
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
How far are you willing to drive? The sand dunes to the southwest are pretty awesome.
Maybe an hour to an hour and a half one way. Not sure if I would do that for sand dunes though since we have some of those in Colorado and I was planning a trip to go see those this summer.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
How far are you willing to drive? The sand dunes to the southwest are pretty awesome.
Maybe an hour to an hour and a half one way. Not sure if I would do that for sand dunes though since we have some of those in Colorado and I was planning a trip to go see those this summer.
I think those are actually the ones he was talking about CC.
@chromatic great buy man, the 6D is better than the 5D MK II in my opinion. I use the 6D at work, and I'm probably going to sell my 7D and upgrade to it, because it is incredible how much better in low light... and just in general the 6D is.
Posts
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
Um...that is a woman who doesn't look like Bieber. o_O
My Portfolio Site
Have you considered shooting film? Nikonos line is ridiculously cheap these days, and while you loose in flexibility, chimping and large number of shots being taken without reloading, you gain possibly the finest dedicated optics designed for underwater photography and a wad of cash left in your pocket.
Thought had not crossed my mind, but I love shooting film - so I may definitely have to check that out. Thanks Muninn, much much appreciated.
My Portfolio Site
So fellow photophiles, I just made a massive purchase, the Epson Stylus Photo R3000. While only a 13" wide printer, it does do borderless and has an awesome inkset for stellar performance with black and white. Having used local printers on and off for 3 years has made me incredibly cynical because I can never get a reprint that looks quite like the old one, or without it costing an arm and a leg. Sure paper and ink will be redonkulous, and I will have to see what I can do to color calibrate everything to make sure things look consistent (Which is what I am terrified most about), but overall I am excited to start printing this shit.
Hopefully by summer I can have a reliable printing workflow down and I can start experimenting with diverse or fine art media. Getting a roll of canvas a go is so exciting.
Oh, there is no doubt I am getting quality. Certain ink and paper combinations have an estimated lifespan of over 200 years. There is a lot of fine art paper available and I may even dabble in canvas.
I have to tell you, a super high resolution file, in Adobe RGB color space, in 16bit, on an 8.5x11 sheet, borderless, black and white... it really doesn't get any better. I really feel like these prints just need a tiny bit sepia toning and they could be mistaken for darkroom wetprints. I really feel like finally, I have gotten to a point where there is this uncanny valley- where the fuji color film paper I used has met its match.
And borderless does something so special. It really makes you feel like you are holding a piece of a larger work. I can't wait to view these test photos under daylight and get a little more personal with them, but they are right now looking like absolute winners and I just got the fucking thing. I can't wait until I have my workflow down to a science, having two or three go-to papers, as well as some nice processing options.
Bunny Run 2013-5 by mgmaness, on Flickr
Bunny Run 2013-6 by mgmaness, on Flickr
Bunny Run 2013-9 by mgmaness, on Flickr
Bunny Run 2013-10 by mgmaness, on Flickr
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
On image 2013-6 I would crop the right part of the frame so you don't get part of the other window. It is a little distracting and doesn't add anything to the main subject.
On image 2013-10 if you were to do it again I would suggest moving the camera to the right just a tiny bit so the left dial isn't partially obscured by the steering wheel.
This is just another perfect example of how people don't value photography compared to other art forms. *sigh*
Bah, sorry to hear that man. I'm always shocked at how many people consider photography no big deal. You would think she'd want the best head shots since they will represent her business. You pay for quality and all that. Best of luck though, when it comes to family it just makes explaining much more difficult. Especially since she expected it for free. I suppose you could just show her people's websites who offer head shots and how much they charge.
My Portfolio Site
Yeah, I told her what most people charge for head shots and I generally charge less because I don't do it often and this was for a family member. She said she hadn't even considered how much it would cost and said she hadn't budgeted for it. I offered to do them for free since she is family and didn't sound like she had the money for both the painting and the head shot, but it still irks me that the thought of paying me didn't even cross her mind.
But family is hard, since you don't want to be a dick, as above statement usually ends up being. :P
It sort of depends on what you were going for here. I'm guessing this wasn't meant as a product shot since you are just showing the back of the watch. Overall I not a giant fan because of the shallow DOF / point of interest. I don't think those two gears are interesting enough as a subject. I would either try and get more of it in focus with a smaller aperture or do some focus stacking. If you wanted a bit more interested maybe you could shoot it again with the watched moved a little to the left and have some gears and small tools laying on the right side as if the watch was being worked on.
In other news, I ordered a (supposedly) fully functional Nikonos V with some of my left over tax return money. So, we'll see how that goes and I'll post photos once I get the camera... take the pictures... and get the pictures back from being developed.
My Portfolio Site
Slowest chimping EVER.
Not a bad composition, you had the right idea with using the lines on the ceiling and the parking lines to try and lead the viewer's eyes to the car - however, the parking lines are in a position where they hurt the photo more than help it. If it was a straight on shot with the car between the lines it would have been pretty great. But the lines don't really help the flow of your eyes because they're just hitting the lines of the car perpendicular and not leading your eyes anywhere.
I'll explain a little better later when I get home for you.
My Portfolio Site
The Rest: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8722578604/in/photostream
I agree with a lot of this. I was also going to say that you lose a lot of the contour of the right side of the car because there is no light on it. The headlights also have such a different color temperature than the light coming from the background that they just look dingy.
@Lucky Cynic
This video shows you how a professional lights a car and then he quickly shows you how to do it with just a single light bulb and a long exposure. If you want to skip to the DIY part go to about 7:30.
Also: sorry didn't go into more detail Cynic, been crazy busy lately.
My Portfolio Site
Yeah, I'm not a fan of it. It seems like it also has a bit of overdone tone mapping.
Prospicience, I've also seen this done with a long exposure and a flash on a stick. Pretty much same concept except you end up having to photoshop out more copies of the light stand.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
From my understanding that sort of retouching is pretty standard for professional photography done for ads, magazines, etc. Sometimes they won't send out the image to another company but will instead of an on staff retoucher.
The photographer provides the base, the retoucher adds the finishing touches. It's a two-man job, and a different way of doing photography. If you are doing it for personal work, then no I can not see the point of a retoucher because you've lost the personal connection to it being "your work. . ." But if this is a professional job (or a personal job you want to look a certain way) it makes sense to do.
Since there are a couple new people posting, I will say that one of the traps a lot of people starting out fall into is that they want to find a scene that is interesting and capture it. They expect serendipity, and often blame their camera or their location if they're not capturing beautiful, interesting images right out of the camera. I think most photographers will admit that being somewhere interesting makes it easier to get started, but it doesn't automatically make your pictures interesting. A car show, as mentioned above, is a good example. There's lots to take pictures of, but most people will step back a bit and get the car in a composition that looks essentially like you're just standing there and looking at a car. Even if you frame it up and position yourself in a way that makes it look like you're doing product photography, there's nothing inherently interesting in an archive-style picture. That's partly why learning your tools is so important, so you understand how depth of field, focusing distance, some basic optics (differences between wide & telephoto), and other elements will affect what you see -- and what a picture will show.
The criticism of my work when I was posting stuff here was that a lot of it was just nice snapshots. A snapshot of an inherently interesting place is nice, but there's not much involved in the craft of that -- the trick is to go to interesting places. The more difficult part, and the part that moves photography into more of an art form, is making a boring thing interesting.
I picked up a used T1i about a year and half ago to get back into photography but it backfired a bit with probably some of the worst autofocus I've used. I was able to do enough with it including some relatives weddings and a convention but it was definitely a barrier to enjoying shooting. I'm also capitalizing on my first new L lens since my 70-200 F4L back in the day.
I suppose I can finally give a couple of my full frame lenses the love they deserve.
Also buying a new gadget in the middle of a busy work week is one way to guarantee it will take forever to get to the weekend.
Congrats! When I jumped to a D800 because I hate money, it was so nice getting back to that 35mm perspective. It felt like my brain worked right again! My brain working right still doesn't produce great images, but I like them enough for me :P
Being able to jack the ISO to 6400 without much fear is also very satisfying. Makes me feel like a mad scientist compared to the old digital days.
I'm going to be going to Salt Lake City next weekend for a crossfit competition my wife is going to be in and I'm looking for things to photograph. I wish there was a website of "if you are going here then here are cool places to take pictures" with GPS coordinates. Sadly that doesn't seem to exist and if it did it might just mean there would be shit tons of the same picture over and over again. So I'm just kind of resorting to googling and checking out pictures from flickr.
Anyone here happen to have specific suggestions? I'm looking to just shoot nature stuff like the somewhere in the salt flats, somewhere at the lake, maybe the Bingham Copper Mine.
Edit: When I say specific I mean like "Oh, I hear that this bay is a good place to shoot the lake from."
Maybe an hour to an hour and a half one way. Not sure if I would do that for sand dunes though since we have some of those in Colorado and I was planning a trip to go see those this summer.
I think those are actually the ones he was talking about CC.
@chromatic great buy man, the 6D is better than the 5D MK II in my opinion. I use the 6D at work, and I'm probably going to sell my 7D and upgrade to it, because it is incredible how much better in low light... and just in general the 6D is.
My Portfolio Site