Update ; lost credits for my video footage, might get some stills into the big newspapers this week.
On the bright side : the people who need to know the details of the camera operators know it, which means if they see it any good I might get more jobs.
so my uni just had a trip to paris which I didnt go on so I could save up for the trip next year to shanghai
except some people on the trip met terry richardson! so gutted I missed out on that!
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;38514303]hey, is it worth my selling my 600D and getting a used 5D Mark II? the only lenses i'd have are my 50mm 1.8 canon and 24mm 2.8 olympus film lens.[/QUOTE]
Only if you want to make videography harder/less flexible.
and want full frame..? I'm getting a 5d mkii and a 50mm 1.4 over the christmas period thanks to some abrupt persuasion from our in house hipster bopie and im so stoked
Any of you guys got experience with bridges?? I've recently had my eyes on the Canon Sx50hs and Panasonic's Fz200 as replacements and a step up from my old Panasonic point and shoot.
I know I could probably get a fair DSLR for about the same price, but I'd like to be able to take my camera with me on trips without having to lug a bunch of lenses around all the time.
What is your price range, look at the rx100 because its the literal best balance of size and image quality
or buy a dslr
[QUOTE=Him1411;38544303]and want full frame..? I'm getting a 5d mkii and a 50mm 1.4 over the christmas period thanks to some abrupt persuasion from our in house hipster bopie and im so stoked[/QUOTE]
same but 50mm 1.8
if i get this job at maccy d's then i might get a 1.4 or even 1.2 with a bit of creative accounting.
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;38551904]same but 50mm 1.8
if i get this job at maccy d's then i might get a 1.4 or even 1.2 with a bit of creative accounting.[/QUOTE]
Go L or go home
Pro body cheap lens.
lol
happy thanksgiving, fp photographers, you guys are awesome.
why disagree trog? if you can afford a dslr its better to get one cos bridge cameras are so awful to use
[QUOTE=Him1411;38556633]why disagree trog? if you can afford a dslr its better to get one cos bridge cameras are so awful to use[/QUOTE]
inb4 sony alpha or whatever camera he has
:downs: (love ya trog)
[QUOTE=Him1411;38556633]why disagree trog? if you can afford a dslr its better to get one cos bridge cameras are so awful to use[/QUOTE]
Because I don't think a DSLR is the camera solution to every problem, and certainly not the one if you don't want to lug lenses around and want something for travel.
And yes I do love me some alpha and nex haha, but ultimately I am inclined to recommend the rx100 over most any other camera. It's got great image quality, covers a good range (around 28-90), has a fast aperture at wide end, does great macro, and has pretty full fledged features. But most importantly it's very compact. I'm talking a little bit bigger than a cell phone. So for someone looking for something to travel with, I would say that you would be much happier with a camera like that than a DSLR, as without changing the lens you can tackle a huge variety of shooting scenarios, all while carrying a camera in your coat.
As far as bridge options go, I'm less inclined to recommend that as they usually get by with a huge zoom range by having a relatively small sensor. And realistically the times when you need more than 90mm aren't super often, just occasionally when shooting wildlife or something similar. But high end compacts will give much better image quality for the price, and be smaller to boot.
I firmly believe that the easier your camera is, the more you will want to shoot it, and the faster you will grow. So I recommend the rx100 or a Panasonic lx7 as great devices to grow with. A DSLR with a kit lens is heavy, and I see these cameras as a more rounded package. When starting with photography, I think you should find out what you like, and be able to go from there. Just my opinion on the matter
[QUOTE=kaizari;38499839]Every time I dump photos from my memory card to my pc I create a new folder according to the date. Today would be 20121118. In there I create two folders, raw and rdy, and copy all pictures to raw. When they are processed I save the JPGs to the folder rdy and then decide which ones I want to upload.
I like creating folders.[/QUOTE]
Eh, I have a slightly more complicated workflow that involves custom scripts, but it goes like this:
1. Copy RAWs from multiple cameras in to one big folder.
2. Run script to make JPEG copies of the RAWs and then put the raws in their own folders.
3. Delete JPEGs I don't want.
4. Run script to move all the JPEGs in to their equivalent RAW folders, and hide the folders which I deleted the jPEGs for.
5. Do editing for each RAW in RawTherapee, render it to 'photo.jpg' in the RAW's folder.
6. Run script to go through each folder and move the JPEG to the main directory and zip up the RAW + processing parameters.
7. Run another script to number them based on how many photos I have in my Photos folder, and the EXIF data of when the new photos were taken.
8. Move zipped RAWS + final JPEGs all numbered to Photos folder.
9. Nuke one big folder.
Then I use Digikam to GPS tag, photo tag and comment on each photo along with copyright information.
Dad just brought me a zenit em, 1980s moscow olympics model
can't wait to try this fucker out
i think i'm beginning to understand why so many shitty photographers make a nice amount of money. though, i understand 'shitty' is indeed subjective, let's take it from a technical stand point. someone obviously has no idea how to use their camera to it's fullest potential, their pictures lack a lot in terms of composition, they know nothing of cameras, and spend retarded amounts of money on gear that they don't understand how to properly use, keep in mind, this is all hypothetical. however, what gets us confused is that they're confident as shit about their work. why? no fucking idea, nor do i care. however, it's the fact that they're confident. that's what people are attracted to, and that's how they're making their bones.
let's put it this way: let's say you visit a doctor, and he seems extremely confident in what he's doing; you have no worry in the world. the fact that he flaunts around his degree, how hard he worked for it, and how experienced he is, you seem to garner a trust for him, based off of what he tells you. he gives you no reason to doubt his abilities, and you proceed to let him do his thing, just because he's a licensed doctor, and he has 'proof' that he knows what he's doing.
now, let's apply a similar scenario to a photographer who doesn't know shit, but looks the role. let's say you also know nothing of photography, you see a man, wielding a camera, a huge-fucking-lens on the front of it, camera bag, has another body around his neck with some sort of other lens on it, and is going picture happy. you watch as some person approaches him, and asks the photographer a few questions. you hear:
"Yeah, I got my photography degree a few years back at the community college.",
"Of course these cameras are mine, would I not be a photographer without a lens this big?",
"You can see all my work on my website.",
"Yes, I have a card; here, take fourteen.",
"I have about $7000+ clocked into the gear I'm wearing JUST-RIGHT-NOW."
before you know it, the curious person is off. you're left with a strong impression that the photographer you saw is indeed a pro-photographer, just because of what he said to the stranger, what he was using, and the amount of confidence he used during the conversation. i mean, you're not a photographer, what else would you know?
"i mean, you're not a photographer, what else would you know?"
now, let's take this into consideration when discussing someone who is not a photographer. do any of you feel just as long as you fit the part, show confidence, and present yourself in a 'professional-manner', that you have just found a client? because that's exactly how i feel, for the majority of people, anyhow. pretty sure a lot of you have dawned upon this conclusion, but thought i'd just share what struck me funny as i was going through the "that guy" thread.
[b]tl;dr: be extremely confident in your work, flaunt around your gear/experience, fill the profile of a photographer, and i'm almost positive clients will be more attracted to you.[/b]
could not agree more man, perfectly worded
well to be fair there's a difference in the social mind between a "professional photographer" and some hobbyist artist. Obviously you have to act the part and be confident in that to be taken seriously (and get clients)
If you act the part, whatever photo you canvas for a client will, in good reason and in their mind, be amazing if you convince them it's good.
Makes sense, but that will only get you so far, you'll stay in the same place. Doesn't work for next level shit.
[url=http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm]Get a good laugh here[/url]
His reasoning isn't all that wrong. Raw files will look better than jpg most of the time, after you edit them. But if you want to get something done quickly just use jpg, get your white balance, exposure, sharpening, etc done correctly in the first place and save yourself a bit of time. I shoot jpg very often and use live view to get everything good looking from the get go, most all of my photo jobs I've used jpeg. Not like the client can tell the difference between a processed raw and a good jpeg, they don't get the files at 100% and haven't seen them side by side.
But this goes along with any artistic craft, you are your own worst critic. You will always be harder on yourself than any of your clients ever will be. So if you adopt an easy work flow to save some sanity at a mild quality loss, it can be worth it.
Shoot perfect exposure and all that correctly in the first place, but do it in RAW.
[img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me2liqY2nP1r2w9nr.gif[/img]
Climbed Ben Nevis, snowy pics incomming some time.
[QUOTE=bopie;38597434]Shoot perfect exposure and all that correctly in the first place, but do it in RAW.
[img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me2liqY2nP1r2w9nr.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Yes I do this too, but then you still have to process the files. Jpg is easier regardless of how you look at it, and gives good results most of the time.
it is easier regarding time consumption however i would rather have access to all the capabilities of RAW and spend a little more time on my photos.
[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;38602155]it is easier regarding time consumption however i would rather have access to all the capabilities of RAW and spend a little more time on my photos.[/QUOTE]
Which is definitely a huge plus, and why I usually stick with raw. But it's not always the better format to use for every situation.
Its just the fact a lot of his reasons are to do with space
I can understand shooting jpeg at sport events where the photos need to be quickly released, but the fact he says ypu neef specialist equipment to edit raw is just sill
[editline]26th November 2012[/editline]
Also thinking about getting the sigma 70 300 f5/6 for sports on a 7d, anyone haf any experiance with it, it looks like it beats the tamron with sigmas antie CA and faster ficusing at the same.price
[editline]26th November 2012[/editline]
Also thinking about getting the sigma 70 300 f5/6 for sports on a 7d, anyone haf any experiance with it, it looks like it beats the tamron with sigmas antie CA and faster ficusing at the same.price
[QUOTE=Trogdon;38603391]Which is definitely a huge plus, and why I usually stick with raw. But it's not always the better format to use for every situation.[/QUOTE]
Give an example of a situation where jpg is superior.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.