The Photography Thread

[miokomioko]

Nor can I. I've done a few and I made a promise to myself, never again... unless the pay is absurd.

[Zansho]

I make it worth my while to shoot a wedding. I don't shoot a wedding if any of these happen:

1. Bride tries to lowball me and "demands" stuff for free because "the other photographers do it." That's all fine and good, but I'm not THEM, and nor do I want to be. I'm not adverse to negotiating, but don't try to screw me and insult my intelligence by lowballing my fees.

2. They tell me they want to bring in "Uncle Bob or Cousin Mike" with their XTI DSLR to shoot with me, so they can get practice. NO. I don't need a hobbyist getting in my way while I'm shooting, and pestering me with questions while I'm working. "Is this the right setting? What about my flash? Halp?" I don't mind talking to them while everyone is eating or outside of work, but while I'm working, please don't stalk me and try to get my shot.

3. Personality conflicts - I know this almost right off the bat. I once ignored this nagging thought that we wouldn't work together well, and the FOB got upset that I shot a lesbian wedding in California, and felt that since I supported a questionable lifestyle, he wants me to refund all monies and not shoot the wedding, especially after I've shot their engagement/bridals, and it was 3 weeks before their wedding date.

Weddings CAN be fun to shoot, with the right people as your clients. I charge about 3k-5k per wedding, and it works out just fine for me. Nowadays though, I'm kind of starting to make the switch to commercial work as I'm now looking at getting a few Tilt Shift lenses to do Architectural/commercial work, and upgrading my lights to Broncolors or Dynalites. Commercial work can be pretty lucrative with the right contacts - I did a small shoot for sprint that netted me about 12k, including the shoot and licensing fees.

Eh, I might just forgo the 40D and grab myself a 5D mark II instead. Hmm..

[Doombear]

(do it!)

[Blabj]

If you're making that kinda money definitely get a 5D mk2. You're bound to get a few clients who know a thing or two about photography and they'll act snobbish about your choice of gear. I've seen it happen to photographers who use Speedlites for location shooting instead of Profoto portable gear - although in my opinion the speedlites were easier to work with...

[Zansho]

I called Canon Loyalty Program - and they said for my 1D Mark II, I can trade it in and get a new camera body for less than retail! In other words, I could trade in the 1D, and get possibly a 5D2 for 1.5k, trade in my 40D, and get a 7D for 1k. HMMMM.

I'd miss the 1D though, that body has been with me through thick and thin. I would mind a 7D for my backup though...HMM. Fix the 1D, get a new 7D, and buy a cheapo 30D for super emergencies? /thinks..

[Tyche]

Don't trade in a DSLR, grab a broken P&S off ebay or something, and trade it in. Same discount.

[BinaHades]

If you want to go full frame, then its totally worth it to invest in the 5D mkII.

[Zansho]

The thing is, I've HAD a full frame camera - the 5D classic which I then sold to purchase my 1D Mark II. I like full frame, don't get me wrong, but I don't consider it the most awesome thing ever since sliced bread.

[miokomioko]

There's never a reason to not go/stay full frame.

[Blabj]

Besides if you shoot sports on very long telephoto lenses and don't want to use a tele extender (or want even more...)

[Doombear]

Haven't shot a ridiculous amount of pictures with my new 5D but love it so far. I am hoping to get my Sigmalux early next week. Doing a few longer exposure shots I did notice some hot pixels. I was going to post a shot with some, but Lightroom's noise removal corrects them so fast that I would have to actually do a screengrab of the image in Lightroom to even show you.

At first I was thinking "NOOOOO FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!" But eh, I am not too worried by it. With 12-13 million pixels... some are bound to be hot. I have even read about quite a few off the assembly line 5DMKIIs/7Ds with hot pixels. I don't plan on doing a ton of long exposure shots anyway, and they are easily removable in post process anyway. I am still waiting for there to be some massive problem with this camera, that is just my mentality. So initially I stressed a bit much over these.

All in all, I am really loving this camera.

[zoobernut]

What lens, shutter speed, aperture were you using for that shot Graelinn? I really like it.

[Doombear]

This was with my wife's 50mm 1.8 shot at f2.8 and 1/1600.

ISO was 400 apparently.

[zoobernut]

Thanks. I wasn't sure. I figured it was either a normal lens opened up really wide or a really long lens from far away at around 5.6 or 8. It really is a beautiful photo. I like your pictures. In post processing do you do much sharpening or desaturation of the colors?

[Doombear]

Wow, thanks Zoob. I definitely post-process, obviously... generally in batches. I create a look that I am happy with and then apply it to a batch of shots. The one above I didn't do THAT much to. Warmed up the temp. shifted a few points from green to magenta, upped the contrast and vibrance and dropped the brightness, upped the saturation a bit, etc. etc. I have way too many presets that I have created in the last few years. I don't really think that any amount of post process coloring is going to make a bad shot good though, so I try to have a picture framed and shot in a way that SOOC works. In the end though, I am rarely as happy with SOOC as I am with my finished product.

I think that there are plenty of naysayers and SOOC ONLY! advocates but the way I see it... every film camera had its own look. Even brand of film has its own saturation level, grain and look. To me, for my own work (again not shooting weddings here or anything like that) being happy with the end result is what I aim for every time. Besides, I have my Konica (and soon hopefully my A2E) if I want to go back to the locked in look of negatives. =)

Here are two more that I shot yesterday, these were a 'different batch' shot with different light, different location and so I ended up going a different route on the 10 or so of this batch:

http://i761.photobucket.com/albums/x...NY/EFFNY/1.jpg
1/30th at f1.8

http://i761.photobucket.com/albums/x...NY/EFFNY/2.jpg
1/13th at f3.2

Looking at these, I DEFINITELY like her lens a little less wide open. The second shot at 3.2 looks to be much closer to a sweet spot on this lens. At least in decent natural light like these.

[miokomioko]

While I prefer wide-open a majority of the time... if, when focusing on the eyes, the nose/lips/chin aren't at least mostly sharp, I'll close down a little to bring those in. When the plane of focus is that extremely shallow, it makes it appear like someone's facial features are extra protrusive to be able to break out of focus.


Also...

http://robertbenson.com/blog/wp-cont...h-1024x858.png

"The HDR Hole" gets me. Good god I hate that shit and I hate even more that anyone thinks it looks good. "Gearfaggotry" is rather accurate and lines up pretty well with that too. It could use a few more "holes" towards the beginning. Perhaps a "Lensbaby Hole."

[Doombear]

Ahaha, I love that image. I think it could use a "Hipstamatic Hole" and perhaps a "Tilt Shift Plugin Hole"? I wouldn't mind a place in that chart for "OMG I ONLY DO film/Poloaroids, Digital is for sellouts". I see no reason to stick to one format due to some silly purist mentality. If they want to stay so 'purist' they should stick to pinhole cameras or print with eggwhite/silver nitrate only...

I would agree with you on the HDR thing. I think I have seen maybe one HDR photo that I liked? 99.9% of the HDR shots I see are just overdone to the point of glaring ugliness (to me). Tilt Shift is a little bit different for me, as I have seen a few that I really like.

EDIT: I just remembered I had a gear question. White balance tools. I don't have the money for calibration software, so that is out, at least for the time being. That said, I was hoping to get some feedback on what you use for white balance. The AWB on this Canon isn't quite at the level that my much newer Leica was. I am perfectly fine doing my WBing in Lightroom or Photoshop, but I was curious to know if buying a gray/white/black card to have with me, or one of the many different "tools" like the Expodisc, or the Xrite Colorchecker cards or something like the BaLens or ColorRight system? All of these are around $99 and I just wonder if they are worth that, or are you able to get the same results with a $6 gray card.

Feedback on what you all might use?

[miokomioko]

I used a Macbeth in school. It worked great for adjustments in post only, as you're not going to fill the frame with any of the small neutral squares... but obviously a pretty high price for such a basic tool. If you only want something to set your grey point on in post or setting your white-balance with... I'd suggest just paying maybe 5 bucks for an 18% grey card.

All in all, I don't think they are worth the $70~100 at all. It's not like it's required to have completely 100% accurate color reproduction on anything besides gnarly high-profile product work (ferrari red, john deere green, etc.). I usually work with casting a slight color haze/flare/tint in post depending on the subject matter... so all the balancing goes out the window. However, I'll always white-balance on an 18% grey card first so I have something neutral to work with from the start. The only time I've ever really had to make use of the full gamut of colors on a Macbeth chart was when I was doing technical assignments on 4x5 transparency film and had to be ultra-careful about any minuscule color shifts.

[Doombear]

Thanks Mioko, that is kind of the way I am leaning on this I think. I do enough post processing that a lot of my presents and profiles are going to scrap 90% of my WB anyway. I do think though that I will get a WhiBal card or just a Kodak Grey Card to have in my photo bag, shoot that in my light at a location and use it as a reference point later on in LR or PS. Thanks for the feedback.

[Doombear]

Does anyone have any recommendations/feedback on affordable single or double flash setups? I know that is a pretty vague question in a lot of ways, so let me link to a few things I am looking at.

One of the setups here: Strobist Kits at Midwest Photo Exchange

Yongnuo 'kit": 1-2 YN-560s + Trigger/Receiver (possibly another Reciever as well if I get two flashes)

Or am I better off just getting ONE 430 EX II and a Trigger/Reciever?

I am looking for something that I can exapnd on later if need be. I would love a 530EX II to use as a Master, but that isn't happening just now. I would primarily like a decent-great flash for on camera use (it is pretty goddamn overcast here in Portland) to compliment existing natural light (I THINK we get some of this occasionally...) as well as having the option for off camera use.

I like the kits from MPEX.com as they are pretty all inclusive (Flash, Triggers, Umbrellas, etc.) and come in varying price points (Cactus V4 or Pocket Wizard Plus). I know you get what you pay for, and again if money was no object I would grab a 530EX and a Pocket Wizard set... but it IS an object. As always any feedback is welcome. I am really just trying to decide if a 430EX II and a Sto-Fen would work for now, or if the LP160s power (and strobist kit) would be a more all around good idea.

Now I am just rambling...